Stock sector & Fidelity Select sector funds performance SSAN
SSAN
Sat, 7/27/96
Below is a rundown on the price performance of 49 stock industry
sectors and the Fidelity Select sector funds for the last week and
10 weeks. The "standard deviations from average" column may be of
special interest to momentum traders. Our newsletter covers the
underlying factors for these sectors and funds in terms of
earnings performance and earnings estimates, revenues, insider
trading, future performance ratings and more to aid you in
profitable decision making.
By the way, mail us if you're interested in some inexpensive
Fidelity Select sector mutual fund price data ($6 for one year of
daily data, $7 for two years of weekly data). And don't do
yourself the terrible disservice of not visiting our website where
we keep current a number of graph and text information features
highly relevant to trading and investing.
The website includes: comparison of earnings reports versus
expectations; US economic growth and SP 500 stock earnings growth;
stock market valuation level; stock market day-of-month price
change tendencies; stock market seasonal price tendencies; SP 500
price, earnings and dividends; the three key US economic factors
to watch; US and world short and long term interest rates; US and
world growth rates for inflation, GDP, industrial production and
retail sales; the US dollar exchange rate; semiconductor
book-to-bill ratio; oil prices and an oil stock index; and gold
and a gold stock index.
Like the newsletter, we designed it to be worth anybody's time who
is an active trader/investor. We don't run you through a lot of
vacuous marketing junk that takes ages to come up on the screen.
This could be a valuable resource for you - don't miss it.
P.S. In Windows, you may have to "Edit, Copy" the material into
Notepad or Clipboard (use "OEM" display) to get the columns
vertically formatted. In some Windows message editors "Edit,
Fixed Font" works.
Thanks.
Stock Sector Analysis Newsletter (SSAN) [$26/yr by e-mail]
Box 7085 C/S CO 80933-7085
Website: Http://Ourworld.Compuserve.Com/Homepages/Ssan
E-mail: 10272...@Compuserve.Com
49 INDUSTRIAL SECTORS * 5 Trading Days * * 50 Trading Days *
Price Rank Std Dvs Price Rank Std Dvs
Chg from Chg from
Avg Avg
Air Passenger, Freight -4.00% 48 -1.6 -15.35% 39 -0.9
Transport, Non Air -0.98% 32 -0.4 -10.59% 30 -0.3
Biotechnology 1.64% 12 0.6 -16.74% 45 -1.1
Drugs 0.21% 26 0.1 0.90% 5 1.3
Medical Supplies 0.58% 21 0.2 -7.09% 22 0.2
Medical Care 1.84% 11 0.7 -17.32% 46 -1.2
Broadcasting -1.16% 33 -0.5 -19.68% 49 -1.5
Publishing -0.84% 30 -0.4 -8.49% 24 0.0
Leisure, Entertainment -1.75% 40 -0.7 -11.55% 33 -0.4
Restaurants -0.24% 27 -0.1 -15.59% 40 -1.0
Toys 4.39% 3 1.8 -18.52% 48 -1.4
Financial Brokers 0.51% 22 0.2 -4.51% 18 0.6
Financial Services 0.43% 23 0.2 -4.47% 17 0.6
Insurance 0.81% 17 0.3 -1.82% 14 0.9
Banks, International 2.17% 9 0.9 -1.42% 12 1.0
Banks, US Regional 1.33% 16 0.5 -2.72% 15 0.8
Savings Loan's 7.28% 1 2.9 3.55% 2 1.7
Computer Software 0.61% 19 0.2 -17.40% 47 -1.2
Computer Hardware 3.82% 4 1.5 -16.39% 43 -1.1
Computer Semiconductors 5.24% 2 2.1 -26.52% 50 -2.5
Electronic Equipment 2.85% 6 1.1 -11.41% 31 -0.4
Defense, Aerospace 1.85% 10 0.7 -1.19% 9 1.0
Manufacturing, Machining -1.30% 35 -0.5 -15.13% 38 -0.9
Auto Makers -3.19% 46 -1.3 -15.92% 41 -1.0
Auto Parts Makers 0.26% 25 0.1 -13.41% 35 -0.7
Cosmetics 2.89% 5 1.2 -6.27% 21 0.3
Consumer Products, Misc 1.62% 14 0.6 -5.91% 20 0.4
Food, Beverage 0.71% 18 0.3 -1.39% 11 1.0
Tobacco 1.60% 15 0.6 4.88% 1 1.9
Retail, All -0.89% 31 -0.4 -8.27% 23 0.0
Homebuilding -1.64% 38 -0.7 -12.37% 34 -0.5
Building Supplies -4.78% 50 -1.9 -9.27% 25 -0.1
Home Products 2.43% 8 1.0 2.36% 3 1.5
Construction, Heavy -1.59% 37 -0.7 -14.89% 37 -0.9
Real Estate Investment -0.46% 28 -0.2 -0.69% 8 1.1
Telecomm, Advanced -1.23% 34 -0.5 -15.94% 42 -1.0
Telecomm, Conventional -2.37% 43 -1.0 -10.11% 27 -0.2
Utilities, Electric -1.67% 39 -0.7 -2.79% 16 0.8
Utilities, Gas -1.31% 36 -0.5 0.53% 6 1.3
Utilities, Water 0.32% 24 0.1 1.27% 4 1.4
Petroleum, Large Integrated -1.90% 41 -0.8 -4.52% 19 0.6
Petroleum, Nonintegrated -2.19% 42 -0.9 -0.26% 7 1.2
Petroleum, Pipelines -3.76% 47 -1.5 -1.59% 13 1.0
Oil Drilling, Eqp, Srvc -4.74% 49 -1.9 -1.39% 10 1.0
Waste, Polution Control -3.19% 45 -1.3 -10.45% 29 -0.3
Chemicals 1.62% 13 0.6 -9.87% 26 -0.2
Metals Producers 0.59% 20 0.2 -16.64% 44 -1.1
Mining -0.77% 29 -0.3 -11.47% 32 -0.4
Lumber, Paper, Containers -2.56% 44 -1.0 -10.34% 28 -0.2
Precious Metals 2.48% 7 1.0 -14.55% 36 -0.8
FIDELITY SELECT SECTOR FUNDS * 5 Trading Days * * 50 Trading Days *
Price Rank Std Dvs Price Rank Std Dvs
Chg from Chg from
Avg Avg
Air Transport 034 -0.52% 11 0.5 -18.87% 35 -1.9
Transport 512 -1.66% 18 -0.3 -8.54% 18 -0.1
Biotech 042 -2.25% 25 -0.7 -12.40% 27 -0.8
Health 063 -1.31% 16 -0.0 -2.68% 9 0.9
Medical Delivery 505 0.73% 6 1.4 -12.21% 26 -0.7
Broadcast, Media 503 -2.56% 30 -0.9 -12.66% 28 -0.8
Leisure 062 -1.64% 17 -0.3 -6.78% 14 0.2
Brokerage 068 -0.92% 14 0.3 -6.52% 12 0.2
Financial 066 0.77% 4 1.5 -0.55% 5 1.3
Insurance 045 -0.54% 12 0.5 0.23% 4 1.4
Regional Banks 507 1.12% 3 1.7 -0.78% 6 1.3
Home Finance 098 1.23% 2 1.8 2.27% 2 1.8
Electronics 008 1.79% 1 2.2 -14.75% 32 -1.2
Computer 007 -0.41% 10 0.6 -15.80% 33 -1.4
Technology 064 -2.04% 23 -0.5 -18.27% 34 -1.8
Software 028 -0.18% 9 0.8 -13.02% 30 -0.9
Devlpg. Communications 518 -2.39% 26 -0.8 -10.84% 24 -0.5
Defense 067 -1.76% 19 -0.3 -8.88% 19 -0.2
Industrial Equipment 510 -0.85% 13 0.3 -7.87% 17 0.0
Autos 502 -1.08% 15 0.1 -7.65% 16 0.1
Consumer Products 517 -2.71% 32 -1.0 -10.78% 23 -0.5
Food, Agriculture 009 -0.17% 8 0.8 1.08% 3 1.6
Retailing 046 -1.87% 21 -0.4 -11.13% 25 -0.6
Construction/Housing 511 -2.65% 31 -1.0 -5.31% 11 0.5
Telecommunications 096 -2.43% 27 -0.8 -7.42% 15 0.1
Utilities 065 -2.07% 24 -0.6 -3.70% 10 0.7
Energy 060 -2.50% 28 -0.9 -0.83% 7 1.2
Natural Gas 513 -3.28% 34 -1.4 2.37% 1 1.8
Energy Services 043 -2.01% 22 -0.5 -1.63% 8 1.1
Environmental Services 516 -3.99% 35 -1.9 -10.06% 21 -0.4
Chemicals 069 0.75% 5 1.5 -6.70% 13 0.2
Industrial Materials 509 -0.16% 7 0.8 -9.38% 20 -0.3
Paper, Forest 506 -1.76% 20 -0.3 -10.75% 22 -0.5
American Gold 041 -2.55% 29 -0.9 -12.81% 29 -0.9
Precious Metals 061 -2.78% 33 -1.1 -14.40% 31 -1.1
Stock Sector Analysis Newsletter [$26/yr by e-mail]
E-mail: 10272...@Compuserve.Com
Website - market info for traders/investors:
Http://Ourworld.Compuserve.Com/Homepages/Ssan
Geoff Miller
One post suggested that Star Wars would have , in effect, destabilized
the balance of power of "mutual assured destruction." Once one side
believed the other had the capacity to shoot down the other's nuclear
weapons in space, the deterance of mutual destruction would be gone and
the none--Star Wars side would be tempted to make a preemtive strike. This
was precisely the reasoning Gorbachave used to back out of the intial
agreement in Iceland to reduce nuclear weaponry. The Russians were scared
shitless of Star Wars. Gorby made the elimination of Star Wars a
precondition for reducing nuclear weaponry.
Ronald Reagan refused to stop the Star Wars program , and instead offered
Gorby this solution: as soon as the Star Wars research begins to bear
fruit, we, the US, intend to GIVE the technology to the Soviets, so that
both sides would be able to knock the others nuclear weapons out the
sky.
All of this is told in detail in a wonderful book, An American Life, which
is Ronald Reagan's biography. Too bad this book will never appear in any
Political Science class, eh?
William F. Hummel
Geoff Miller (g...@lamar.colostate.edu) wrote:
: One post suggested that Star Wars would have , in effect, destabilized
------------
Having worked on some Star Wars development programs, I can assure you
we never came close to developing the capability to shield the U.S. from
incoming ICBMs. And any serious attempt to do so would have bankrupted the
country, and still failed. I have little doubt that the Soviets were well
aware of that. Their intelligence programs, including their moles in
high places, could hardly have missed the fact. Thus I have no faith in
any claims that the Soviet leaders lost a lot of sleep over Star Wars,
although they could certainly have used it as a bargaining chip in
negotiations.
With Edward Teller pitching to Ronald Reagan's fantasies, Star Wars
became one of the biggest boondogles of the Reagan years. But that's
another story.
William F. Hummel
Gene Gurevich
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, William F. Hummel wrote:
Thus I have no faith in
> any claims that the Soviet leaders lost a lot of sleep over Star Wars,
> although they could certainly have used it as a bargaining chip in
> negotiations.
>
Just another proof that noone is perfect. I have been enjoying your
finance-related posts for quite a while. And I wish you'd stick to this
subject in the future. You seem to be much more knowledgeble about investment
then about politics
Gene
Geoff Miller
Having worked on some Star Wars development programs, I can assure you
we never came close to developing the capability to shield the U.S. from
incoming ICBMs.
judgment to make such statement. How do you explain the shooting down of
the skud missiles in the Arabian Dessert? This was a result of the Star
Wars program,Sir.
And any serious attempt to do so would have bankrupted the
country, and still failed.
I would suggest you stay in your comfortable academic world. You have no
basis for such a statement.
I have little doubt that the Soviets were well
aware of that. Their intelligence programs, including their moles in
high places, could hardly have missed the fact. Thus I have no faith in
any claims that the Soviet leaders lost a lot of sleep over Star Wars,
although they could certainly have used it as a bargaining chip in
negotiations.
f waht you say is true, can you explain the deaths of all those star wars
scientists in Britain.You think the KGB murdered them on a whim? You must
believe that Reagan got taken in ? Was it the Defense Department who were
manipulating him? How could the soviets have used it as a bargaining
chip?
Don McKenzie
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96072...@qix.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
Gene Gurevich <ge...@umich.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, William F. Hummel wrote:
>
> Thus I have no faith in
> > any claims that the Soviet leaders lost a lot of sleep over Star Wars,
> > although they could certainly have used it as a bargaining chip in
> > negotiations.
> >
>
> Just another proof that noone is perfect. I have been enjoying your
> finance-related posts for quite a while. And I wish you'd stick to this
> subject in the future. You seem to be much more knowledgeble about investment
> then about politics
>
He was more convincing than you are.
--
Don McKenzie, Hollywood, CA
Campaign finance reform is
antipathetic to American capitalism
Frank Palmer
William F. Hummel (wfhu...@netcom.com) wrote:
: ------------
: Having worked on some Star Wars development programs, I can assure you
: we never came close to developing the capability to shield the U.S. from
: incoming ICBMs. And any serious attempt to do so would have bankrupted the
: country, and still failed. I have little doubt that the Soviets were well
: aware of that. Their intelligence programs, including their moles in
: high places, could hardly have missed the fact. Thus I have no faith in
: any claims that the Soviet leaders lost a lot of sleep over Star Wars,
: although they could certainly have used it as a bargaining chip in
: negotiations.
This has puzzled me for some time. Hummel is right that the fact that we
didn't have a practical system was well known. The Soviets should have picked
it up, _Scientific American_ did.
HOWEVER:
There is a great deal of information that persuades me that the
Soviet leadership did NOT pick up on it. They expected (or at least
feared) a working system.
: With Edward Teller pitching to Ronald Reagan's fantasies, Star Wars
: became one of the biggest boondogles of the Reagan years. But that's
: another story.
: William F. Hummel
--
flpa...@ripco.com
Frank Palmer
Chicago
Ernest Barreto
In article <01bb7dd7.00190160$7fc05281@gmm>,>the skud [sic] missiles in the Arabian Dessert? This was a result of
>the Star Wars program, Sir.
>
I saw a talk by a professor from MIT who was able to conclude, by
carefully analyzing network news footage from the Gulf war, that
nearly 100% of the Patriot missles FAILED to intercept incoming
Scuds. In fact, some Patriots slammed into the ground, having
calculated the intercept point to occur underground.
Ernie
Tracy Monaghan
On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Internaut Capt Jack wrote:
> Demographics and entitlements have far more to do with the deficit
> than the person holding the Office of President. The S&L crisis didn't
> help either.
According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, of the
approximately US$2 trillion federal debt accumulated during the eight
years Reagan held office, US$1 trillion resulted from decreased revenues
(i.e. tax cuts) and the other US$1 trillion from increased defense
spending.
These were Reagan's two main campaign issues.
The S&L bailout legislation was signed into law in Aug 1989 by President
Bush and did not contribute to the federal debt from 1981 through 1988
(the Reagan years).
Cheers,
Tracy <mona...@cac.washington.edu>
Sr. Computer Specialist
Information Systems
Campus mail: Box 354844
Tracy Monaghan
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Geoff Miller wrote:
> > Having worked on some Star Wars development programs, I can assure you
> > we never came close to developing the capability to shield the U.S. from
> > incoming ICBMs.
>
> Do you honestly believe that your work--whatever it was--has given you the
> judgment to make such statement. How do you explain the shooting down of
> the skud missiles in the Arabian Dessert? This was a result of the Star
> Wars program,Sir.
Development of the Patriot Missile System began during the Carter
administration and had no connection with "Star Wars".
So much for *your* expertise.
mike
William:
I'm in agreement with everything you have said on this thread. And for
the John Birchers out there, no, I'm not a card carrying anything except
a Triple-A member.
I could also say that the Star Wars program put my kids to college. We
software contractors at Grumman all had a grand old time developing
continuous wave deuterium generators, and all the other garbage that we
knew was going nowhere. But the dough and OT at time-and-a-half was
goooood! It was almost like the LEM program was resurrected.
In a way, I looked at SDI as a big tax refund. It was as if Ronnie
called me up and said, "Mike you've been a good American and a good
citizen. Your work in the defense of your country was not gone
unnoticed. For this reason, the American people will refund every penny
in taxes you have ever paid. However, I hope you don't mind, that
you'll have to pay taxes on this refund."
Mike Tenenbaum
m.ten...@ieee.org
William F. Hummel
Geoff Miller (g...@lamar.colostate.edu) wrote:
: Having worked on some Star Wars development programs, I can assure you
: we never came close to developing the capability to shield the U.S. from
: incoming ICBMs.
:
: Do you honestly believe that your work--whatever it was--has given you the
: judgment to make such statement. How do you explain the shooting down of
: the skud missiles in the Arabian Dessert? This was a result of the Star
: Wars program,Sir.
The Patriot missiles never shot down a single SCUD (sp). Even the DOD
now acknowledges that. Think about it. The only way to prevent the
SCUD from exploding on the ground is to either disable its fuse in flight
or blow it up in flight. Neither happened. Gravity has a funny way of
working. What goes up must come down, and the SCUDs came down.
: And any serious attempt to do so would have bankrupted the
: country, and still failed.
: I would suggest you stay in your comfortable academic world. You have no
: basis for such a statement.
-------------
I've been an engineer/designer in both missiles and spacecraft all my
life, never an academic. But I don't see what that has got to do with
one's ability to apply common sense. And I do know what it would have
taken to create an ICBM shield. Clearly you do not.
: I have little doubt that the Soviets were well
: aware of that. Their intelligence programs, including their moles in
: high places, could hardly have missed the fact. Thus I have no faith in
: any claims that the Soviet leaders lost a lot of sleep over Star Wars,
: although they could certainly have used it as a bargaining chip in
: negotiations.
: If waht you say is true, can you explain the deaths of all those star wars
: scientists in Britain.You think the KGB murdered them on a whim? You must
: believe that Reagan got taken in ? Was it the Defense Department who were
: manipulating him? How could the soviets have used it as a bargaining
: chip?
--------------
What incentive does it take for the KGB (or the CIA) to murder? And yes,
Reagan was clearly taken in, not only by the Defense Dept but by numerous
others. Star Wars is not the only example. How about the Supply Siders,
the Deregulators, the Iranians, and on and on? As for bargaining chips,
I'm surprised you ask. Would you say that the Soviets did not use the
removal of their nuclear missiles in Cuba as a bargaining chip? Every
potential advantage during the Cold War was a bargaining chip for one
side or the other.
William F. Hummel
David Lloyd-Jones
"Geoff Miller" <g...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote
In reply to the following from, I think, Bill Hummell:
>>Having worked on some Star Wars development programs, I can assure you
>>we never came close to developing the capability to shield the U.S. from
>>incoming ICBMs.
>
>Do you honestly believe that your work--whatever it was--has given you the
>judgment to make such statement. How do you explain the shooting down of
>the skud missiles in the Arabian Dessert? This was a result of the Star
>Wars program,Sir.
It didn't happen. When the Iraqis were slinging Scuds at Israel, the
Israelis were getting hit by Scuds, Scud junk, and falling Patriot
missiles. In the one time when a Scud was aimed at anything
accurately, it killed 200+ American soldiers in Saudi Arabia.
Those wonderful photographs that were shown on US TV are frauds: a TV
camera, like a TV set, scans its electrtostatic field, the hundreds of
thousands of little capacitors that make up the picture, 60 times a
second, getting 30 pictures a second. This is far too slow to catch
the moment of two missiles hitting at hypersonic speeds -- if by happy
accident they ever met. What those pictures actually show is
fireworks going off somewhere in the neighborhood of where a Scud may
or may not have been.
From the evidence of what actually landed in Israel, there were no
hits of the sort which destroyed a Scud up there in the sky rendering
it hamless when it hit the ground. There may have been one or two
wing shots that diverted the incoming a mile or so.
The investigation of the killer Scud in Saudi Arabia showed that it
was a "software error" that stopped the Patriots from even responding.
This is reported as though the software were something alien, apart
from the missiles. In reality this is like saying "Your car is fine,
Mrs. Lincoln, except the engine doesn't work."
-dlj.
Internaut Capt Jack
Geoff Miller
I saw a talk by a professor from MIT who was able to conclude, by
carefully analyzing network news footage from the Gulf war, that
nearly 100% of the Patriot missles FAILED to intercept incoming
Scuds. In fact, some Patriots slammed into the ground, having
calculated the intercept point to occur underground.
I wonder is this one of those professors who believe that our defense
department has manipulated us into supporting an arms race? Noone outside
of the academic world takes them seriously. I think you'll find they
aren't really serious about trying to understand how our society works
anyway.
Gorbachev, by the way, did believe that our defense department was
basically controlling our government. And that the defense industries
wanted the cold war , and a continuation of the arms race, to make a
profit.
Absoultely incredable, for high ranking soviet officials to have such a
sophomoric understanding of American society. Gorbachev, also, had never
heard of Social Security or Unemployment Insurance. He didn't believe
these things even existed in America. Just the rapacious capitalist
existed here in america, riping and tearing, and screwing everyone.
David Hinds
Geoff Miller (g...@lamar.colostate.edu) wrote:
: I wonder is this one of those professors who believe that our defense
: department has manipulated us into supporting an arms race? Noone outside
: of the academic world takes them seriously. I think you'll find they
: aren't really serious about trying to understand how our society works
: anyway.
I thought that the consensus opinion of the Patriot/SCUD stuff was
that very few, if any, SCUD's were actually successfully intercepted.
SCUD's had a nasty habit of falling apart in flight. Also, since they
were being "intercepted" on their way down (when they were in free
fall), you'd expect all the debris to impact more or less where the
SCUD would have, anyway. Since SCUD's aren't known for accuracy
either, knocking one off course is sort of any oxymoron. It isn't
just some loony professor.
: Gorbachev, by the way, did believe that our defense department was
: basically controlling our government. And that the defense industries
: wanted the cold war , and a continuation of the arms race, to make a
: profit.
: Absoultely incredable, for high ranking soviet officials to have such a
: sophomoric understanding of American society. Gorbachev, also, had never
: heard of Social Security or Unemployment Insurance. He didn't believe
: these things even existed in America. Just the rapacious capitalist
: existed here in america, riping and tearing, and screwing everyone.
Almost as sophomoric sounding as... no, I won't say it.
-- Dave Hinds
dhi...@hyper.stanford.edu
William F. Hummel
Frank Palmer (flpa...@ripco.com) wrote:
: William F. Hummel (wfhu...@netcom.com) wrote:
: : Having worked on some Star Wars development programs, I can assure you
: : we never came close to developing the capability to shield the U.S. from
: : incoming ICBMs. And any serious attempt to do so would have bankrupted the
: : country, and still failed. I have little doubt that the Soviets were well
: : aware of that. Their intelligence programs, including their moles in
: : high places, could hardly have missed the fact. Thus I have no faith in
: : any claims that the Soviet leaders lost a lot of sleep over Star Wars,
: : although they could certainly have used it as a bargaining chip in
: : negotiations.
: This has puzzled me for some time. Hummel is right that the fact that we
: didn't have a practical system was well known. The Soviets should have picked
: it up, _Scientific American_ did.
--------------
It would be more accurate to say that we never even had the conceptual
design for a practical system. They were all fundamentally flawed, and
none was even started into the detailed design phase, let alone into
production, launch, and deployment. It was recognized that any such
system could *easily* be disabled at very little cost to the Soviets.
I am not referring to local defenses using high velocity ground-based
intercepting missiles. But even they could not provide adequate defense
when decoys far outnumber ICBMs in an attack.
: HOWEVER:
: There is a great deal of information that persuades me that the
: Soviet leadership did NOT pick up on it. They expected (or at least
: feared) a working system.
--------------
One should not forget that there was a lot of domestic politics involved
in this matter. What are the examples of the information that persuades
you, and can you be sure it is not our own propaganda?
William F. Hummel
John K. Taber
Frank Palmer wrote:
>
> This has puzzled me for some time. Hummel is right that the fact that we
> didn't have a practical system was well known. The Soviets should have picked
> it up, _Scientific American_ did.
>
> There is a great deal of information that persuades me that the
> Soviet leadership did NOT pick up on it. They expected (or at least
> feared) a working system.
Good points. I suspect that in some aspects the Soviet system was not that
much different from ours. Just as Reagan's courtisans pitched to his
prejudices, I imagine that Gorby's courtisans pitched to his. I imagine
both sets of courtisans had a stake in keeping expensive military programs
going.
What do you think of collusion between the two enemy systems?
--
============================================================================
"The encryption codes available today are so powerful, Freeh said, that it
would take the FBI more than a year to decode a single message in some
cases."-- FBI director Freeh's testimony to the Senate Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee.
John K. Taber
Charles Tutt wrote:
>
> In <Pine.ULT.3.95.960730...@red5.cac.washington.edu>
> Tracy Monaghan <mona...@cac.washington.edu> writes:
> IMHO, however, it was the Reagan frenzy of deregulation which led to
> the need for an S&L bailout, so I still credit it to him. When nobody
> is watching the henhouse, the foxes will take over.
IMHO, it was LBJ and fighting the Vietnam War without price controls or
wartime economic controls and taxes. In my view, this led to a surge of
inflation that trapped Savings and Loans in a regulation stranglehold.
S&Ls couldn't compete for deposits against the money market funds. In
1981 in Texas, State Sen. Bill Meiers introduced a bill to outlaw money
market funds. State Sen. Meiers was recognized as the representative of
S&Ls. Money market funds were going to be forbidden in Texas. Imagine
that.
Anyhow, S&Ls were forced into ever riskier loans to cover the interests
they had to pay to attract deposits.
I feel that S&Ls were more sinned against than sinning, and were the
govmint's scapegoats for the govmint's own blunders.
I was not fond of Ronald Reagan. But fair is fair. The S&L rap should
not be laid on him.
--
John
Charles Tutt
In <Pine.ULT.3.95.960730...@red5.cac.washington.edu>
Tracy Monaghan <mona...@cac.washington.edu> writes:
>
>
>approximately US$2 trillion federal debt accumulated during the eight
>years Reagan held office, US$1 trillion resulted from decreased
revenues
>(i.e. tax cuts) and the other US$1 trillion from increased defense
>spending.
>
>These were Reagan's two main campaign issues.
>
>The S&L bailout legislation was signed into law in Aug 1989 by
President
>Bush and did not contribute to the federal debt from 1981 through 1988
>(the Reagan years).
>
>
>
>Tracy <mona...@cac.washington.edu>
>Sr. Computer Specialist
>Information Systems
>Campus mail: Box 354844
>
Internaut Capt Jack
Tracy Monaghan <mona...@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Internaut Capt Jack wrote:
>> Demographics and entitlements have far more to do with the deficit
>> than the person holding the Office of President. The S&L crisis didn't
>> help either.
>According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, of the
>approximately US$2 trillion federal debt accumulated during the eight
>years Reagan held office, US$1 trillion resulted from decreased revenues
>(i.e. tax cuts) and the other US$1 trillion from increased defense
>spending.
>These were Reagan's two main campaign issues.
>The S&L bailout legislation was signed into law in Aug 1989 by President
>Bush and did not contribute to the federal debt from 1981 through 1988
>(the Reagan years).
>Cheers,
BTW, Clinton has had greater deficits each year than any of Reagan's
or Bush's. His deficits may be increasing at a slower rate, but they
are still bigger than his predicessors. If the spending was
unnecessary or discretionary as you imply, why has Clintons not been
spending less, and cut out the unnecessary spending? Once again, the
President has littel to do with it, entitlements and demographics
determine it. Clintons own optomostic budget has the deficit
ballooning in a few years.
Internaut Capt Jack
cjt...@ix.netcom.com(Charles Tutt ) wrote:
Bzzzzzt, Home State went under way too early in Reagans term to be the
cause. The high inflation of the late 70's, fixed intrest loans, over
expansion of loans in the oil sector, the fall in oil prices, etc etc,
lead to the S&L crisis, not deregulation. BTW, all that occurred under
Carter.
Tom Miller
Internaut Capt Jack wrote:
>
> BTW, Clinton has had greater deficits each year than any of Reagan's
> or Bush's.
Wrong. Bush's last two budgets, in 93 and 92 are the highest. The
estimated deficit for FY 1996 is $116 billion, which is considerably
lower than most of Reagan's budgets, and even lower when you consider the
dollars in real, rather than nominal terms, and much lower as a percent
of the total budget or GDP.
Ernest Barreto
In article <01bb7e48.9f51bda0$e6c05281@gmm>,
Geoff Miller <g...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>
>>I saw a talk by a professor from MIT who was able to conclude, by
>>carefully analyzing network news footage from the Gulf war, that
>>nearly 100% of the Patriot missles FAILED to intercept incoming
>>Scuds. In fact, some Patriots slammed into the ground, having
>>calculated the intercept point to occur underground.
>
>department has manipulated us into supporting an arms race? Noone outside
>of the academic world takes them seriously. I think you'll find they
>aren't really serious about trying to understand how our society works
>anyway.
>
You're probably right. The professor in question was quite focused
on only one question: Did the Patriot missles do what the military
right on up to the president said they did? Answer: no.
I think that his findings, however, do have implications for how our
society works.
Ernie
sasha
"Geoff Miller" <g...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>I saw a talk by a professor from MIT who was able to conclude, by
>carefully analyzing network news footage from the Gulf war, that
>nearly 100% of the Patriot missles FAILED to intercept incoming
>Scuds. In fact, some Patriots slammed into the ground, having
>calculated the intercept point to occur underground.
>
>I wonder is this one of those professors who believe that our defense
>department has manipulated us into supporting an arms race? Noone outside
>of the academic world takes them seriously. I think you'll find they
>aren't really serious about trying to understand how our society works
>anyway.
FYI: NY Times ran a big article about it either in June or July.
According to the cited study, the effect of so-called "smart weapons"
was only a little better than that of "dumb weapons". Patriot, in
particular, was a complete failure. It turns out, only one launch was
successful, AFAIR. Everything you saw on your TV screen was lies.
Defence dept. basically agreed with the assessments but (surprise!!)
insists on further orders of "smart weapons".
Alexander
Gene Gurevich
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Don McKenzie wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96072...@qix.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
> Gene Gurevich <ge...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, William F. Hummel wrote:
> >
> > Thus I have no faith in
> > > any claims that the Soviet leaders lost a lot of sleep over Star Wars,
> > > although they could certainly have used it as a bargaining chip in
> > > negotiations.
> >
> He was more convincing than you are.
I did not make any arguments because I did not think that the topic was
relevant here. However, if YOU insist let me explain that the goal of Soviets
was to achieve military advantage over US (this was the only area they
could count on success). With SDI on the table ( and I still am not
convinced that it was bluff), they lost any chance to achieve that goal:
they did not have enough money and technology to match SDI. That's why
Gorbachev become the leader, that's why he came up with "perestroika",
new thinking etc. Without SDI we still may have had some half-corpse in
Kremlin.
> >
-- > Don McKenzie, Hollywood, CA > > Campaign finance reform is
> antipathetic to American capitalism
Yeah, Lets adapt the cuban model:
Step 1. Comandante is always right
Step 2. If comandante is not right, go to Step 1.
Gene
David Meyers
In article <4tmvt7$1...@news.inforamp.net> d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
>Tom Miller <TCMi...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>Wrong. Bush's last two budgets, in 93 and 92 are the highest. The
>>estimated deficit for FY 1996 is $116 billion, which is considerably
>
>debt? Roughly $120 billion, isn't it?
The debt is the result of _every_ president and congress which
has been running a deficit. The last year in which a deficit
was not run was 1969. The debt and the interest on it is the
acculated overspending of lots more folks than just Reagan and
Bush. And while those two were clearly in office during the
worst periods of _growth_ of the debt, and while they both
certainly had veto power over the horrendous budgets which congress
passed (which they would have exercised if they were taking
responsibility for things instead of shirking it), the fault
clearly lies with both them _and_ the congresses during their
tenure.
>I'd like to see the exact numbers, but I know the result: absent
>Reagan and Bush, the Clinton operating budget is already balanced.
...for the short term.
As of 12/31/81, the national public debt was $1.028e12 -
around a trillion dollars. Bearing in mind that for much
of the eighties, interest payments were double-digit, and
allowing for compounding and refinancing, I'd estimate
that about half the current debt (and interest corresponding
to it) is the growth of that debt generated prior to Reagan.
As of 12/31/93, the debt was $4.5e12.
As of 07/29/96 $5,182e12.
I got the above numbers from the very intersting web site
of the USTreasury:
http://www.ustreas.gov/treasury/bureaus/pubdebt/opda.html
I'd very much like to see what the average interest rate
paid over the course of those various years had been. I
don't know what it was, but it seems quite likely that the
trillion in debt at the end of 81 would have more than
doubled at compounded prevailing interest rates over the
twelve years in question.
For what its worth, the current debt and current projected
deficit would have been somewhat lower were it not for the
much maligned (and often deserving it) republican congress.
The biggest problem is that the things which are really
going to blow this thing up are not discretionary spending,
which is what they spend most of their time arguing about.
It is entitlements - Medicare and SS -- which are the real
budget busters, and it's only getting worse. And these
disasters have strong bipartisan support (and lots of
beneficiaries who are the strongest lobby voting them
back into office).
--D
--
dme...@panix.com
"Any technology distinguishable from magic
is insufficiently advanced."
Tracy Monaghan
On 31 Jul 1996, Brad Ensminger wrote:
> Tracy Monaghan <mona...@cac.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, of the
> >approximately US$2 trillion federal debt accumulated during the eight
> >years Reagan held office, US$1 trillion resulted from decreased revenues
> >(i.e. tax cuts) and the other US$1 trillion from increased defense
> >spending.
>
> Depends on how you want to interpret the numbers. If you're comparing
There's my mistake. I didn't interpret any numbers. I just naively
accepted the report by the Congressional Budget Office. Thankfully there
are individuals like yourself who can cut through all these data which
might conflict with perceptions.
> spending any money on defense. However I'll wager that the CBO report
> was not allowed to criticize mandatory spending and/or overly optimistic
> projections of federal revenues
So, when "citizen" Dole claims the CBO is non-partisan, even when Congress
was controlled by Democrats, he means the CBO was "not allowed to
criticize mandatory spending and/or overly optimistic projections of
federal revenues" as proposed by the Democrats.
Thank you for this clarification.
> (I.E. the Clinton plan...wish hard enough and back-load all cuts until
> after the turn of the century & a balanced budget is no problem.)
So, obviously, when the CBO last year reported that the Republican
Balance Budget plan would not balance the budget, stating the Republican
plan promised tax cuts up-front while back-loading most cuts until
after the turn of the century, it was also because it couldn't criticize
the Republican "overly optimistic projections"?
No, that's not right. The CBO was being critical of Republican
projections. Instead, it should have just blindly accepted the Republican
projections. Unless the CBO is always wrong. But then, why did the CBO
report Clinton's budget plan wouldn't balance the budget? It couldn't
have been wrong that time, too, could it?
Perhaps, just perhaps, the CBO is consistently correct and both parties
take liberties with their projections?
> Historically federal tax cuts have been followed by growth in federal tax
> revenues. Even the most liberal economists can't poke holes in that fact.
> They will however tell you that the several occurances are just aberrations
> and have nothing to do with resultant rises in tax revenue.
I defy you to be able to find any two economists who would agree to
anything. Truman often wished for a one-armed economist so they couldn't
keep saying "...but on the other hand..."
The fact is (and you can look at the federal receipts for the 1980s),
after the 1981 tax decrease, tax revenues dropped and revenues only
increased after the 1982 tax increase. (Curiously, in another "errant"
report, the CBO states that the 1982 tax increase pushed through Congress
by "citizen" Dole and signed by anti-tax Reagan was the largest tax
increase ever or since in US history, even larger than Clinton's 1993
tax increase, when measured in inflation-adjusted 1993 dollars, as a
percentage of GDP and on a basis of number of taxpayers whose tax was
increased. The Wall Street Journal and the National Taxpayer Union, who
obviously have their own political agendas, reported the same.)
Cheers,
Roy Porter
Gene Gurevich <ge...@umich.edu> wrote:
>Just another proof that noone is perfect. I have been enjoying your
>finance-related posts for quite a while. And I wish you'd stick to this
>subject in the future. You seem to be much more knowledgeble about investment
>then about politics
Why do you wish that Mr. Hummel not respond to this thread? Could it be
that you cannot stand to see your own views challenged? If you are so
much more knowledgeable about Star Wars, perhaps you should share your
knowledge and make your argument on the merits rather than make an ad
hominem attack.
If you know anything about software, you must realize how unreliable a
Star Wars system, consisting of millions of lines of undemonstrated code,
would have been. Not to mention that deploying such a system would
violate the ABM Treaty.
Al Kozakiewicz
In article <4tmvt7$1...@news.inforamp.net>, d...@inforamp.net says...
>
>I'd like to see the exact numbers, but I know the result: absent
>Reagan and Bush, the Clinton operating budget is already balanced.
Remember that the deficit is already understated by the amount transferred
from Social Security's operating surplus to the federal budget. This
amount is around $200B annually, making the real deficit $316B.
This particular bit of deceit has been practiced, unfortunately, by both
parties.
Regards,
Al
--
________________________________________________________________________
Al Kozakiewicz, President phone: 518.452.9062
Hourglass Systems, Inc.
Microsoft Solution Provider
________________________________________________________________________
David Lloyd-Jones
zdg <z...@interlog.com> wrote:
>Welcome to the Canadian Trap, operating surpluses but you just can't get
>over the past accumulation of interest payments to make a dent in the
>total debt. What amazes me is that people don't realize that in both
>countries, if spending was dramatically reduced for a few years the
>Gov'ts could probably get a handle on total debt and when that starts to
>reduce North America would become much better off in the next century.
>Sure there would be a few years of hardship but the long term effects
>over 20 years or so would be enormous. Of course to help offset this
>short term impact they could reduce taxes. Imagine the US without the
>debt, the freed up money could probably help to provide a National
>Healthcare program, so that when the UN surveys come out in 2010 the US
>might finally top Canada as the best place to live. This would all
>depend of course on the politicians uses the savings to reduce the debt,
>which is one very big if...
It isn't necessarily a trap. The way out is a clawback on the major
tax loophole of the Upper Half: tax deferred investments. These are
investments in IRA's, pension funds, and trusts, which not merely went
untaxed but also reduced the marginal rates people paid at at the time
the investments were made.
In most cases, and overall in aggregate, these investments have done
very well over the period since Reagan was elected, particularly
during the Clinton bull market, named no doubt for Hillary's futures
activity.
Since the bulk of this investment was recent, and the bulk of the
gains were recent, both the deferral of income tax originally and the
deferral of capital gains taxes to date have been contemporaneous with
the creation of the Reagan/Bush debt, plus Clinton's interest payments
on that debt.
So the tax target seems obvious: a one time recognition of this stuff
as income, at a rate structure like that in place before Reagan gave
away the candy store.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
Gene Gurevich <ge...@umich.edu> wrote:
>On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>> I'd like to see the exact numbers, but I know the result: absent
>> Reagan and Bush, the Clinton operating budget is already balanced.
>Or absent gazillion dollars spent on "great society", we'd have a balanced
>budget. the difference is that military spending had a positive result
Killing two million Vietnamese and setting Cambodia up for the Pol Pot
horror is your idea of a positive result?
-dlj.
Brad Ensminger
Tracy Monaghan <mona...@cac.washington.edu> writes:
>According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, of the
>approximately US$2 trillion federal debt accumulated during the eight
>years Reagan held office, US$1 trillion resulted from decreased revenues
>(i.e. tax cuts) and the other US$1 trillion from increased defense
>spending.
Depends on how you want to interpret the numbers. If you're comparing
Regan's budgets to the same budgets with $0 defense spending then sure
we could have saved US$1 trillion during his two terms by simply not
spending any money on defense. However I'll wager that the CBO report
was not allowed to criticize mandatory spending and/or overly optimistic
projections of federal revenues (I.E. the Clinton plan...wish hard enough
and back-load all cuts until after the turn of the century & a balanced
budget is no problem.)
Historically federal tax cuts have been followed by growth in federal tax
revenues. Even the most liberal economists can't poke holes in that fact.
They will however tell you that the several occurances are just aberrations
and have nothing to do with resultant rises in tax revenue.
If you want to point fingers just look at entitlements as a percentage of
the federal budget. They grew from a fairly small portion during Regan's
first term to the vast majority now (I don't have the numbers in front of
me but it seems to me that it went from 30-35% in 1980 to around 70% now.)
Unless someone stands up and injects some sanity into entitlement spending
we're all in for a long ride. My personal proposal: A reverse sliding
scale for Social Security & Medicare whereby anyone earning at or above
the level of the average American is on their own and benefits increase
inversely with decreasing income such that folks near (and below) the
poverty level recieve full benefits. I can't justify a young family
earning $20-30,000 (and I know lots of them in this area) who can't pay
their medical bills or afford to buy a home coughing up tax dollars to
pay medical expenses and stipends for retired folks whose incomes are
far higher than theirs. Of course I hold NO hope that anyone in Washington
will ever listen to me. :(
Cheers,
Brad Ensminger
>The S&L bailout legislation was signed into law in Aug 1989 by President
>Bush and did not contribute to the federal debt from 1981 through 1988
>(the Reagan years).
Raghothama Cauligi
reason attributed to Partiot failure was that the Scud would disintegrate
presenting many targets, before the Patriots intercepted it. Then Israeli
Prime Minister said he informed Bush that the Partriots were at best 20%
effective. A major reason for insisting that Patriots were as effective
as the Pentagon claimed (The Pentagon claimed 100% success initially, if
I remember right) was to keep the Israeli population calm. Many scuds
were falling into Israel and it was in the coalition's best interest to
keep Israel from striking back at Iraq. By touting the Patriot's
superiority, it was believed that the Israeli population would feel safe
enough and not demand that Israeli army retaliate.
Raghu
Gene Gurevich
On 31 Jul 1996, Charles Tutt wrote:
> IMHO, however, it was the Reagan frenzy of deregulation which led to
> the need for an S&L bailout, so I still credit it to him. When nobody
> is watching the henhouse, the foxes will take over.
My impression from the "One Up on Wall Street" is that the deregulation
was not done in the best possible way. Considering that the bills were
created in the Congress (conrolled by the Dems at that time)... you get
the picture...
Gene
Gene Gurevich
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> I'd like to see the exact numbers, but I know the result: absent
> Reagan and Bush, the Clinton operating budget is already balanced.
Or absent gazillion dollars spent on "great society", we'd have a balanced
budget. the difference is that military spending had a positive result
Gene
Gene Gurevich
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, zdg wrote:
> in 2010 the US
> might finally top Canada as the best place to live.
US IS the best place to live. Compare the numbers of people trying to
move to US from Canada and to Canada from US.
Gene
LARRY
In <wfhummelD...@netcom.com> wfhu...@netcom.com (William F.
Hummel) writes:
>
>Al Kozakiewicz (ako...@hourglass.com) wrote:
>
>: Remember that the deficit is already understated by the amount
transferred
>: from Social Security's operating surplus to the federal budget.
This
>: amount is around $200B annually, making the real deficit $316B.
>This would be true if FICA were not just another form of income tax.
>The deficit is the difference between all tax revenues and government
>expenditures, or equivalently the amount by which the federal debt
owned
>by the private sector increases in one year.
>
>-------------
>The "deceit" has to do with creating the impression that the SS trust
>fund is a pool of savings for retirees. In reality it is an
accounting
>system to track the flow of certain funds, but having nothing to do
with
>the ability to pay the benefits prescribed under the SS law.
>
>William F. Hummel
As late as two years ago, the SS trust fund money spent by the feds was
NOT counted as part of the deficit as stated by Al Kozakiewicz, even
though the fund should have a positive balance and drawing interest.
To get the true deficit, add about $200 b. Everyone knows now there
ain't no money there, but many don't know this is not counted as part
of the deficit. I consider it embezzlement of the highest order, at
least a Ponzi scheme. Both illegal anywhere else.
Today's true deficit is around $320 b, but under Bush it was worse.
--
---------------------------------
Credit belongs to those actually in the arena, not to observers.
lar...@ix.netcom.com
---------------------------------
William F. Hummel
Al Kozakiewicz (ako...@hourglass.com) wrote:
: Remember that the deficit is already understated by the amount transferred
: from Social Security's operating surplus to the federal budget. This
: amount is around $200B annually, making the real deficit $316B.
-------------
This would be true if FICA were not just another form of income tax.
The deficit is the difference between all tax revenues and government
expenditures, or equivalently the amount by which the federal debt owned
by the private sector increases in one year.
: This particular bit of deceit has been practiced, unfortunately, by both
: parties.
David Lloyd-Jones
Tom Miller <TCMi...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Internaut Capt Jack wrote:
>> BTW, Clinton has had greater deficits each year than any of Reagan's
>> or Bush's.
>Wrong. Bush's last two budgets, in 93 and 92 are the highest. The
>estimated deficit for FY 1996 is $116 billion, which is considerably
>lower than most of Reagan's budgets, and even lower when you consider the
>dollars in real, rather than nominal terms, and much lower as a percent
>of the total budget or GDP.
And of that $116 billion, how much is interest on the Reagan/Bush
debt? Roughly $120 billion, isn't it?
I'd like to see the exact numbers, but I know the result: absent
Reagan and Bush, the Clinton operating budget is already balanced.
-dlj.
zdg
Tracy Monaghan
On 31 Jul 1996, sasha wrote:
> FYI: NY Times ran a big article about it either in June or July.
> According to the cited study, the effect of so-called "smart weapons"
> was only a little better than that of "dumb weapons". Patriot, in
> particular, was a complete failure. It turns out, only one launch was
> successful, AFAIR. Everything you saw on your TV screen was lies.
> Defence dept. basically agreed with the assessments but (surprise!!)
> insists on further orders of "smart weapons".
The study was conducted by the Government Accounting Office. As we have
learned, though, when these studies conflict with conventional
(conservative) wisdom, they are deemed incorrect.
William Hopkins
In article <SASHA.96J...@dragon.whoi.edu>,
sasha <sa...@dragon.whoi.edu> wrote:
>
>FYI: NY Times ran a big article about it either in June or July.
>According to the cited study, the effect of so-called "smart weapons"
>was only a little better than that of "dumb weapons". Patriot, in
>particular, was a complete failure. It turns out, only one launch was
>successful, AFAIR. Everything you saw on your TV screen was lies.
>Defence dept. basically agreed with the assessments but (surprise!!)
>insists on further orders of "smart weapons".
To be fair to the Patriot system, it should be noted that it
was originally designed to intercept aircraft, not missiles.
Intercepting aircraft is a good deal easier, and Patriot (I
think) is reasonably good at it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Will Hopkins Internet: hop...@apollo.hp.com
Chelmsford System Software Lab (CSSL) Phone: (508) 436-4966
The Hewlett-Packard Company Fax: (508) 436-5140
Sun, Xiaohua
In article <4tl8t6$p...@fractal.umd.edu>, bar...@Glue.umd.edu (Ernest Barreto) writes...
>In article <01bb7dd7.00190160$7fc05281@gmm>,
>Geoff Miller <g...@lamar.colostate.edu> wrote:
>>
>>How do you explain the shooting down of
>>the skud [sic] missiles in the Arabian Dessert? This was a result of
>>the Star Wars program, Sir.
>>
>
>I saw a talk by a professor from MIT who was able to conclude, by
>carefully analyzing network news footage from the Gulf war, that
>nearly 100% of the Patriot missles FAILED to intercept incoming
>Scuds. In fact, some Patriots slammed into the ground, having
>calculated the intercept point to occur underground.
>
FWIW, i was on a business trip to London this Jan, happened to be the
5 year anniversary of the Gulf war. Heard on BBC radio from an British
expert that actually not one Scud missile was actually shot down by the
Patriot. The authority claimed otherwise just to calm the public.
sAm
Internaut Capt Jack
Tom Miller <TCMi...@concentric.net> wrote:
>Internaut Capt Jack wrote:
>>
>> BTW, Clinton has had greater deficits each year than any of Reagan's
>> or Bush's.
>Wrong. Bush's last two budgets, in 93 and 92 are the highest. The
>estimated deficit for FY 1996 is $116 billion, which is considerably
>lower than most of Reagan's budgets, and even lower when you consider the
>dollars in real, rather than nominal terms, and much lower as a percent
>of the total budget or GDP.
Wrong? Who is wrong? The following can be found on pg 365 in the 1995
Economic Report of the President. OK, I was wrong by saying that "all"
the deficits were higher, but take a look.
"On-Budget" Deficit
1980 -72.7 Reagan lowered taxes and the deficit went up.
1981 -74.0
1982 -120.1
1983 -208.0
1984 -185.7
1985 -221.7
1986 -238.0
1987 -169.3
1988 -194.0
1989 -205.2 Bush
1990 -278.0 Bush
1991 -321.4 Desert Storm Bush BTW, Bush raised taxes, and the
deficit still went up.
1992 -340.5 Desert Storm Bush
1993 -300.5 Clinton BTW, Clinton raised taxes and the deficit still
went up.
1994 -258.8 Clinton
1995 -251.8 Clinton
1996 -262.0 est Clinton
BTW, even Keynes would agree with the increase in the deficit during
Bush's recession. Keynes promoted deficits during recessions, and
surplusses during expansions.
Reagan vs. Clinton, 8 to 0. All reagans deficits were smaller.
Bush vs Clinton 2 to 2, and Clinton did not have a recession and a
war.
Break down of spending, pg 71
Social Security 1970 3% GDP
1995 4.75%GDP
Net Interest 1970 1.75% GDP
1995 3.25%GDP
Health Entitlements 1970 0.75%
1995 3.75% Ouch
Mandatory Spending 1970 2%
1995 2.25%
1995 Govt Breakdown
Social Security 22%
Defense 18%
Net Interest 15%
Medicare 10%
Medicaid 6%
Pensions and Unemployment 6%
Other Income sec 6%
Other 13%
Food Stamps 2%
Intnl Aff 1%
AFDC 1%
Not much discretionary spending eh?
Mind telling me how Bush, Reagan, or Clinton could not have had a
deficit with such a large portion of the budget being entitlements?
da...@apertus.com
In article <SASHA.96J...@dragon.whoi.edu>,
sasha <sa...@dragon.whoi.edu> wrote:
>
>FYI: NY Times ran a big article about it either in June or July.
>According to the cited study, the effect of so-called "smart weapons"
>was only a little better than that of "dumb weapons". Patriot, in
>particular, was a complete failure.
Did the NY Times mention that the Patriot was NOT designed to
intercept missiles?
What the Times said amounts to "That Toyota Corolla is a really
lousy fishing vehicle because the darn thing keeps sinking".
So much for honesty and integrity from the NY Times.
Cheers,
Dave Johnson
Internaut Capt Jack
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
BTW, David, look at these figures. As I understand the liberal
rhetoric, the Reagan military expansion increased the deficit, right.
Defense as a % of GDP
1970 8.25%
1975 4.75%
1980 5.00%
1985 6.25%
1987 7.00%
1990 5.00%
1995 4.00%
As a % of GDP, Reagan only got us up to the 1974 level of defense
spending. The 1 or 2 % flucuation is hardly enough to generate the
deficits that developed.
Defense having started at 8% and ending at 4% is in a down trend.
Entitlements however are going in the opposite direction.
Social Security
1970 3%
1995 5%
Health Entitlements
1970 0.5%
1995 3.75%
Interest on debt
1970 1.5%
1995 3.25%
Other Mandatory spending
1970 1.75%
1995 2.25%
Edward M Duran
Well I liked and voted for Reagan. Some say his policies brought
communism down. Was the price worth it???? Some think the price of
FDR's policies were and continue to be enormous.
Personally, I think the FED is the problem. If you look at the Asian
economies, they seek GROWTH and set policies to achieve it. These
fast/high growth countries have ZERO estate taxes and ZERO capital
gains taxes. Meanwhile the Fed is schizo with an inflation monster
that doesnt exist and keeps its foot on the brake to achieve an anemic
growth rate that will ensure the U.S. loses whatever dominance it still
has in business and technology. And maybe the rate of growth in the
national debt might be reduced but the national debt itself will
continue to rise as we head down the same road as the UK.
ED
In <Pine.ULT.3.95.960730...@red5.cac.washington.edu>
Tracy Monaghan <mona...@cac.washington.edu> writes:
>
>On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Internaut Capt Jack wrote:
>
>> Demographics and entitlements have far more to do with the deficit
>> than the person holding the Office of President. The S&L crisis
didn't
>> help either.
>
>According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, of the
>approximately US$2 trillion federal debt accumulated during the eight
>years Reagan held office, US$1 trillion resulted from decreased
revenues
>(i.e. tax cuts) and the other US$1 trillion from increased defense
>spending.
>
>These were Reagan's two main campaign issues.
>
>The S&L bailout legislation was signed into law in Aug 1989 by
President
>Bush and did not contribute to the federal debt from 1981 through 1988
>(the Reagan years).
>
>
Al Kozakiewicz
In article <32001C...@onramp.net>, jkt...@onramp.net says...
>Put your money in the bank, even a checking account. Guess what? The bank
>has lent your money out, or is otherwise using it, and it's not there.
>It's not there. Oh woe! Oh lack-a-day! Oh my ducats! Oh my daughter! But
>somehow, your check is cashed. Amazing, isn't it?
The government is not a bank. It does not create wealth; in fact, the
taxation of it depresses its creation by the private sector, and the
policies funded by use of that confiscated wealth, on the whole, further
discourage its creation.
As a more accurate analogy, take your retirement savings and spend it on a
vacation. Throw a big party. Fix that hole in the roof. Send your kids
to Harvard. Tack an I.O.U. onto the account statement. Come back in 20
years and figure out who's going to honor those I.O.U.'s. Oh, it's you,
and you can't get the money without forgoing niceties like food, or
pricing yourself out of the job market. Unfortunately, and unlike the
government, you can't simply go to your employer and force them to
increase your wages to cover those debts. I guess it isn't quite like a
bank, is it?
The original justification for higher FICA taxes was that if we didn't
sock enough money away in the SS "trust fund" (what a joke) today, there
wouldn't be enough to cover future obligations. Well, guess what? There
still won't be enough because the Federal government done spent it all
today anyway and left naught but T-bills to cover the future obligations.
In effect, instead of a future crisis in FICA taxes when the cash inflow
is not enough to cover the cash outflow, there will be a future crisis
where servicing the debt owed to SS will have to come from higher general
fund taxes, curtailed programs or both. Money is fungible. Taking out of
the left pocket and putting into the right does not increase your net
worth.
Al Kozakiewicz
In article
<Pine.ULT.3.95.960730...@red5.cac.washington.edu>,
mona...@cac.washington.edu says...
>According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, of the
>approximately US$2 trillion federal debt accumulated during the eight
>years Reagan held office, US$1 trillion resulted from decreased revenues
>(i.e. tax cuts) and the other US$1 trillion from increased defense
>spending.
Any calculation of 'decreased revenues' (real revenues rose during the
period, so we already have a whiff of the political slant of the report)
as a result of tax cuts presupposes that one knows what the revenues would
have been had tax rates not been cut. Since that's not knowable, the CBO
must base it's projection on assumptions. The biggest assumption is that
a changing tax policy has no dynamic effect on revenue collection, an
assumption that is demonstrably false.
What is knowable is the real growth of spending. The rate of growth of
federal spending exceeded both inflation and revenues during the period.
Hence the proximate cause of the deficit.
Furthermore, Reagan's annual budget submissions were habitually declared
'dead on arrival' by the Congress. It is disingenuous to lay the blame
for the results entirely on Reagan.
The CBO is an arm of a political body. To expect divine truth from such
an entity is incredibly naive.
David Lloyd-Jones
bu...@megalinx.net (Internaut Capt Jack) wrote:
>"On-Budget" Deficit
>1980 -72.7 Reagan lowered taxes and the deficit went up.
The above is the result of Jimmy Carter's second last budget.
>1981 -74.0
50% of this one is still Carter.
>1982 -120.1
This, up 62% is the _first_ full Reagan budget cycle.
>1983 -208.0
>1984 -185.7
>1985 -221.7
>1986 -238.0
>1987 -169.3
>1988 -194.0
>1989 -205.2 Bush
>1990 -278.0 Bush
>1991 -321.4 Desert Storm Bush BTW, Bush raised taxes, and the
>deficit still went up.
Uh, Bumpy, Desert Storm was Hessians for rent: the US ran it at a
profit.
>1992 -340.5 Desert Storm Bush
Don't blame Desert Storm for this: more profit was rolling in.
>1993 -300.5 Clinton BTW, Clinton raised taxes and the deficit still
>went up
Nope. This is Bush's last full year..
>1994 -258.8 Clinton
50% Clinton.
>1995 -251.8 Clinton
Clinton's first full budget cycle. Defict down 2.8%
>1996 -262.0 est Clinton
Ah, yes, statistics...
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
bu...@megalinx.net (Internaut Capt Jack) wrote:
>d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>BTW, David, look at these figures. As I understand the liberal
>rhetoric, the Reagan military expansion increased the deficit, right.
>Defense as a % of GDP
>1970 8.25%
>1975 4.75%
>1980 5.00%
>1985 6.25%
>1987 7.00%
>1990 5.00%
>1995 4.00%
>As a % of GDP, Reagan only got us up to the 1974 level of defense
>spending. The 1 or 2 % flucuation is hardly enough to generate the
>deficits that developed.
Cap'n;
Your figures show defense going from 5% of GNP in Carter's last full
budget to 7% in Reagan's -- a 40% rise in it's saliency in an economy
that was also both growing and inflating.
Since the Reagan deficit was two-point-something percent of GNP, this
2% of GNP increase in defense spending would seem to account for most
of it, and interest on earlier defense spending would account for the
rest by 1988.
Your figures, Bumpy.
-dlj.
LARRY
In <SASHA.96A...@dragon.whoi.edu> sa...@dragon.whoi.edu (sasha)
writes:
>
etc. Second, following your logic, the hoopla that was coming from the
>Defence Dept. during and after the Gulf War amounts to "Toyota Corolla
>is a really great fishing vehicle", which is an outright lie no matter
>what it was designed for.
>
>So much for honesty and integrity from the Defence Dept.
>
>
>Alexander
Do you really expect our side to proclaim to the enemy that our system
is no good? The thought that we had a workable system undoubtedly had
an effect upon Iraqi tactics. It's like a poker game; bluffing is
relevant. We used the best we had, which was limited by those far
sighted visionaries who didn't want the Defense Department to 'rip us
off' by spending money on a better system.
LARRY
In <DMEYERS.96...@panix.panix.com> dme...@panix.com (David
Meyers) writes:
>
>The real deceit is that people DO think that they are
>paying "in" to SS, and that they have a _right_ to get
>that money back. They have no more such right to get
>SS money than do they have a right to one of the M-16s
>that were purchased with the money collected from them
>as income taxes.
>
Most of this discussion is semantics about definitions of the deficit,
but the above is the first step in telling future recipients that they
have no rights to SS when they retire, which may be true. Why do I
have an account with so much credit in my name?
William F. Hummel
A. R. Cruse (trit...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: The military-industrial complex has been a self perpetuating entity for
: many years, and as long as politicians have their hands out and the
: political process is SO money intensive, you will always have deficits
: and a national debt that would choke a horse!
-----------
The Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) is a bigger bill of goods
than the Maginot Line, and orders of magnitude more expensive. The idea
that a static defense can ever repel an enemy attack is naive on its face.
The human imagination is simply incapable of anticipating all of the ways
in which an offense can be modified to overcome a known defense.
The SDI program has applied the most advanced technology available to
*conceptually* repel a selection of threats, primarily ICBM launches from
Soviet soil. It has succeeded *conceptually* in dealing with a subset of
the possible threats. It is an intellectually fascinating challenge for
the engineer/scientists involved. It is a great windfall for those
companies that receive contracts to work in the SDI arena.
Even if the SDI community were able to solve the total problem, the cost
of transferring that solution to reality through the detailed design,
production, launch, deployment, and checkout phases simply boggle the
imagination. The number of orbiting spacecraft required to provide
the kill capability and the costs of maintaining them in operational
status would make our present DOD budget pale by comparison.
But what is not generally stated is that the whole array of spacecraft
involved in SDI could be disabled within a matter of weeks through the
launch of a few tons of lead pellets, the equivalent of about one Shuttle
bayfull, into the appropriate orbit altitude. Waiting until the system
was nearly operational and then dispensing those pellets would succeed in
wiping out some trillion plus dollars worth of effort.
: Don't get me wrong, I am all for a strong national defense and a LARGE
: fan of high technology, but also fiscally prudent and would want some
: type of insurance that the investment in such technologies have
: positive spin off value to the private sector that can continue to fuel
: our GNP growth. The payoffs from the NASA Apollo program were very
: evident, but such payoffs now, aren't being utilized by transfering the
: technology to private uses to generate earnings that can be
: taxed...that in turn, could be applied to the defecit time bomb. One
: day...the timer will ring and it will blow up in our face!
-------------
I see the payoffs of the Apollo lunar program as primarily political.
Having personally been directly involved in the design of the first lunar
soft lander that preceded the Apollo, the Surveyor spacecraft, I can
attest to the fact that most of the technology for both those programs
was already in hand before the programs were initiated. There were many
very tough engineering challenges left to overcome, but they did not
require great advances in technology.
William F. Hummel
Al Kozakiewicz
In article <DMEYERS.96...@panix.panix.com>, dme...@panix.com
says...
>Two errors. First, no money is 'transferred' from SS to the
>federal budget. All the money comes from one place - current
>taxes and borrowing. The fiction of the SS surplus (and trust
>fund) is only there to indicate how close the taxes which were
>created in order to pay SS benefits come to actually paying them.
>Anything excess or short (currently excess, later on short)
>goes to or comes from the _rest_ of taxes or borrowing.
I think you're preaching to the choir. However:
Unless I got it wrong (and it's been several years since I paid close
attention to the details), SS is "off-budget", and the mechanism used to
account for the moneys that are collected via FICA but spent in the
general fund is to issue treasury notes for the amount "borrowed". The
"assets" of the SS "trust fund" are IOU's from the government to itself.
The deceit lies in that you cannot claim to have assets that are only
promises to pay yourself back (if you have the money) later. You can
spend the surplus, or you can save it, but you can't do both at the same
time. As long as the federal government claims that OasDI "assets" are
increasing, I think it is perfectly fair to characterize the operating
deficit as understated.
If I went to the bank and borrowed money to fund a business plan, and
then took that money and spent it on something entirely different, it
would be called fraud and I would be in prison. As I see it, there is
little moral difference between that and justifying raising FICA taxes
so that the money will "be there" when it's needed, but spending the
proceeds on stuff the electorate might well have rejected had a general
income tax increase been proposed.
Kevin E. Bertsch
Geoff Miller wrote:
>
> Having worked on some Star Wars development programs, I can assure you
> we never came close to developing the capability to shield the U.S. from
> incoming ICBMs.
>
> Do you honestly believe that your work--whatever it was--has given you the
> judgment to make such statement. How do you explain the shooting down of
> the skud missiles in the Arabian Dessert? This was a result of the Star
> Wars program,Sir.
>
> And any serious attempt to do so would have bankrupted the
> country, and still failed.
>
> I would suggest you stay in your comfortable academic world. You have no
> basis for such a statement.
>
> I have little doubt that the Soviets were well
> aware of that. Their intelligence programs, including their moles in
> high places, could hardly have missed the fact. Thus I have no faith in
> any claims that the Soviet leaders lost a lot of sleep over Star Wars,
> although they could certainly have used it as a bargaining chip in
> negotiations.
>
> f waht you say is true, can you explain the deaths of all those star wars
> scientists in Britain.You think the KGB murdered them on a whim? You must
> believe that Reagan got taken in ? Was it the Defense Department who were
> manipulating him? How could the soviets have used it as a bargaining
> chip?
Not to seem churlish, but can anyone explain to me what any of these
messages have to do with technical investing?
Puzzled,
Kevin
Al Kozakiewicz
In article <wfhummelD...@netcom.com>, wfhu...@netcom.com says...
>The Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) is a bigger bill of goods
>than the Maginot Line, and orders of magnitude more expensive. The idea
>that a static defense can ever repel an enemy attack is naive on its
face.
With all due respect, isn't the spectre of a full-blown SDI a straw man?
What credible people are proposing is a modest use of ABM technology to
deter attacks from rogue nations like N. Korea, Iran and Iraq when (not
if) they finally acquire intercontinental delivery systems to go along
with their payloads. No one is proposing that we build today a system to
thwart a Soviet-era MAD magnitude nuclear exchange.
Like it or not, we're probably less than 20 years away from at least a
half-dozen nations having some limited ability to launch deadly payloads
from their soil to ours. Some prudent investment today to neutralize that
threat will seem like a bargain in 2 decades when the options are fewer
and more costly.
Alan Johnson
> : Ronald Reagan refused to stop the Star Wars program , and instead offered
> : Gorby this solution: as soon as the Star Wars research begins to bear
> : fruit, we, the US, intend to GIVE the technology to the Soviets, so that
> : both sides would be able to knock the others nuclear weapons out the
> : sky.
>
> : All of this is told in detail in a wonderful book, An American Life, which
> : is Ronald Reagan's biography. Too bad this book will never appear in any
> : Political Science class, eh?
> ------------
> Having worked on some Star Wars development programs, I can assure you
> we never came close to developing the capability to shield the U.S. from
> country, and still failed. I have little doubt that the Soviets were well
> high places, could hardly have missed the fact. Thus I have no faith in
> any claims that the Soviet leaders lost a lot of sleep over Star Wars,
> although they could certainly have used it as a bargaining chip in
> negotiations.
>
> became one of the biggest boondogles of the Reagan years. But that's
> another story.
>
> William F. Hummel
A laughable story from the Mike Reagan show a couple years back.
Remember a couple years ago when that Chinese satelite was falling from orbit?
Mike Reagan actually claimed that the US should have continued with Star
Wars so we could shoot down "this Chinese spy satelite. That way we
wouldn't be putting american lives at risk!"
How much money per person would that have cost US tax payers for insurance
agianst falling satelites?
Any guesses?
--
These are my opinions, and not necessarily those of my employer. alan.j...@adobe.com
Gene Gurevich
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> It isn't necessarily a trap. The way out is a clawback on the major
> tax loophole of the Upper Half: tax deferred investments. These are
> investments in IRA's, pension funds, and trusts, which not merely went
> untaxed but also reduced the marginal rates people paid at at the time
> the investments were made.
>
> So the tax target seems obvious: a one time recognition of this stuff
> as income, at a rate structure like that in place before Reagan gave
> away the candy store.
Bravo! This is by far the best way to encourage american taxpayers to
save even less then they currently do for retirement and ensure
ever-increasing load on the governmental programs which will lead, of
course, to more tax increases in the future.. You must be Clinton's economic
adviser :)
BTW how do you "give away the candy store" and almost double the income?
Sounds like a neat trick....
Gene
Gene Gurevich
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> Gene Gurevich <ge...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> >> I'd like to see the exact numbers, but I know the result: absent
> >> Reagan and Bush, the Clinton operating budget is already balanced.
>
> >Or absent gazillion dollars spent on "great society", we'd have a balanced
> >budget. the difference is that military spending had a positive result
>
> Killing two million Vietnamese and setting Cambodia up for the Pol Pot
> horror is your idea of a positive result?
My idea of a positive result is a liberation of Eastern Europe,
destruction of Berlin Wall, president Havel etc. Pol Pot was a marxist
put to power by Vietnamese communists after we left (remember the domino
theory?). You can't blame it on Reagan (you can though blame Clinton)
David Meyers
In article <4to5qt$d...@lori.albany.net> ako...@hourglass.com (Al Kozakiewicz) writes:
>Remember that the deficit is already understated by the amount transferred
>from Social Security's operating surplus to the federal budget. This
>amount is around $200B annually, making the real deficit $316B.
Two errors. First, no money is 'transferred' from SS to the
federal budget. All the money comes from one place - current
taxes and borrowing. The fiction of the SS surplus (and trust
fund) is only there to indicate how close the taxes which were
created in order to pay SS benefits come to actually paying them.
Anything excess or short (currently excess, later on short)
goes to or comes from the _rest_ of taxes or borrowing.
The second error is this (numbers based on 1994):
OasDI "trust fund" assets at the end of 1993: $378.3e9
OasDI "trust fund" assets at the end of 1994: $436.4e9
The difference -- the annual "surplus": : $ 58.1e9
Given that there is no separate trust fund, calling that
$58 billion an unaccounted-for part of the deficit is
simply incorrect, as it would be equally incorrect to
consider that $436billion an unaccounted for part of the
national debt. This is simply money that the government
"owes" itself, and it really makes no difference -- when
the SS surplus disappears and the "trust funds" start
getting paid out, the excess comes from the same place
as all the rest of the federal money - taxes and borrowing.
And when the "trust fund" is empty, the excess SS payments
come directly from general revenues, rather than from the
accumulated excess SS taxes. In the meantime, that $58B
excess SS tax money is being used for general gov't spending.
It is not like the people who pay "in" to SS have any sort
of ownership claim to that money.
>This particular bit of deceit has been practiced, unfortunately, by both
>parties.
The real deceit is that people DO think that they are
paying "in" to SS, and that they have a _right_ to get
that money back. They have no more such right to get
SS money than do they have a right to one of the M-16s
that were purchased with the money collected from them
as income taxes.
The deceit is reinforced by the _very_ loose coupling
between SS taxes paid in and OAS benefits received later.
--D
--
dme...@panix.com
"Any technology distinguishable from magic
is insufficiently advanced."
A. R. Cruse
The government spends FAR MORE under the "secrecy" veil than you could
EVER work out backwards from any CBO report.
In addition, the Patriot missle system is OLD NEWS. The government has
had its replacement ready for a year now.
See: http://plk.af.mil/PLhome/SUCCESS/toc.html
This page belongs to a "Quasi-private" company known as Phillips
Laboratories. The major investor IS the U.S. Airforce. I don't recall
seeing any equity investments on any CBO budget reports for the Air
Force.
Phillips Laboratories had always been working on the Star Wars
Program.The info on the above web site is appx. 1 1/2 years old. Let me
give you an update on just one piece of the puzzle that is listed on
the Web site.
For example, A satilite that is the main sensor for the SDI system is
called MSTI-3, is the main sensor. It is the operational sensing
satilitte for the system. MSTI-1 & MSTI-2 were the prototypes. MSTI-3
was launched by the Air Force from the Vandenburg AFB Range within the
last year from a Pegasus launch vehicle (the one that is carried aloft
by a B-52, an obscure article covering this can be found by doing a web
search under Alta Vista).
The MSTI satillite signal is being handled by NASA, through their
Wallops ISland tracking facility in Virginia. MSTI-3 is designed to be
a relatively "cheap" satilitte, so they can be replaced easily. MSTI-3
is the main sensor for LEAP (Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile for
Theatre Missile Defense). The web site listed above has a diagram of
the LEAP system. Ever wonder about those secret DoD shuttle missions
that have no TV coverage.....the last couple have been involved with
the testing of this and related technologies.
One of the products developed to solve the "million lines of computer
code" processing problem that needs to be solved to make SDI a reality
is also listed on the web site. A new, minaturized "FAST" computer that
is incorporated in this technology, and is especially designed for the
rigors of outer space.
The reason that I have listed this info is not to put myself out as a
proponent of the "conspiracy theory" idiom, but just as an example of
somethings that are verifiable about how the government is spending
those unaccounted for dollars, if you dig hard enough. Go to the Web
site and look at everything this "company" is working on. Phillips Labs
and their projects sure doesn't get much coverage from the mainstream
media- the "so called" guardians of free speech"!
Besides relying on this info, I have friends with DoD and NASA which
have confirmed portions of this info.
The military-industrial complex has been a self perpetuating entity for
many years, and as long as politicians have their hands out and the
political process is SO money intensive, you will always have deficits
and a national debt that would choke a horse!
Don't get me wrong, I am all for a strong national defense and a LARGE
fan of high technology, but also fiscally prudent and would want some
type of insurance that the investment in such technologies have
positive spin off value to the private sector that can continue to fuel
our GNP growth. The payoffs from the NASA Apollo program were very
evident, but such payoffs now, aren't being utilized by transfering the
technology to private uses to generate earnings that can be
taxed...that in turn, could be applied to the defecit time bomb. One
day...the timer will ring and it will blow up in our face!
In <DvF7M...@apollo.hp.com> hop...@apollo.hp.com (William Hopkins)
writes:
>
>In article <SASHA.96J...@dragon.whoi.edu>,
>sasha <sa...@dragon.whoi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>FYI: NY Times ran a big article about it either in June or July.
>>According to the cited study, the effect of so-called "smart weapons"
>>was only a little better than that of "dumb weapons". Patriot, in
>>particular, was a complete failure. It turns out, only one launch was
>>successful, AFAIR. Everything you saw on your TV screen was lies.
>>Defence dept. basically agreed with the assessments but (surprise!!)
>>insists on further orders of "smart weapons".
>
>To be fair to the Patriot system, it should be noted that it
>was originally designed to intercept aircraft, not missiles.
>Intercepting aircraft is a good deal easier, and Patriot (I
>think) is reasonably good at it.
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~
Cynthia L Sundell
: > Killing two million Vietnamese and setting Cambodia up for the Pol Pot
: > horror is your idea of a positive result?
:
: My idea of a positive result is a liberation of Eastern Europe,
: destruction of Berlin Wall, president Havel etc. Pol Pot was a marxist
: put to power by Vietnamese communists after we left (remember the domino
: theory?). You can't blame it on Reagan (you can though blame Clinton)
Do you just make this stuff up? Pol Pot came to power
*before* the fall of Saigon. He was later driven *out of power*
by the Vietnamese communists *after* we left.
The domino theory certainly was disproved by the events following
our withdrawal from SE asia. There was no subsequent spread of
communism out of that area.
sasha
da...@apertus.com wrote:
>In article <SASHA.96J...@dragon.whoi.edu>,
>sasha <sa...@dragon.whoi.edu> wrote:
>>
>>FYI: NY Times ran a big article about it either in June or July.
>>According to the cited study, the effect of so-called "smart weapons"
>>was only a little better than that of "dumb weapons". Patriot, in
>>particular, was a complete failure.
>Did the NY Times mention that the Patriot was NOT designed to
>intercept missiles?
I don't think so. I'm almost sure they did not. I'm not prepared to
challenge the poster who said it, but this the first time I hear about
it. Maybe, just maybe, it's a mistake?
>What the Times said amounts to "That Toyota Corolla is a really
>lousy fishing vehicle because the darn thing keeps sinking".
>
>So much for honesty and integrity from the NY Times.
First of all, they fairly reported the findings of the CBO study, so
IMO they are clean on the honesty and integrity side. The study was
NOT focused on Patriots, as I said before, they evaluated the
performance of all sorts of "smart weapons" like laser guided bombs
Tom Miller
Internaut Capt Jack wrote:
>
> Tom Miller <TCMi...@concentric.net> wrote:
>
> >Internaut Capt Jack wrote:
>
> >>
> >> BTW, Clinton has had greater deficits each year than any of Reagan's
> >> or Bush's.
>
> >Wrong. Bush's last two budgets, in 93 and 92 are the highest. The
> >estimated deficit for FY 1996 is $116 billion, which is considerably
> >lower than most of Reagan's budgets, and even lower when you consider the
> >dollars in real, rather than nominal terms, and much lower as a percent
> >of the total budget or GDP.
>
> Wrong? Who is wrong? The following can be found on pg 365 in the 1995
> Economic Report of the President. OK, I was wrong by saying that "all"
> the deficits were higher, but take a look.
>
> "On-Budget" Deficit
I think you are using "Off budget". Social security is running a surplus which when
placed on budget, makes the outlook a lot better. I was counting social security on
budget as it IS a part of fed revenues and outlays, but as there is a case for using
"off budget" numbers, I'll take your point.
(accurate looking numbers deleted. DLJ has already corrected your parenthetical
comments)
> 1995 Govt Breakdown
>
> Social Security 22%
> Defense 18%
> Net Interest 15%
> Medicare 10%
> Medicaid 6%
> Pensions and Unemployment 6%
> Other Income sec 6%
> Other 13%
> Food Stamps 2%
> Intnl Aff 1%
> AFDC 1%
>
> Not much discretionary spending eh?
> Mind telling me how Bush, Reagan, or Clinton could not have had a
> deficit with such a large portion of the budget being entitlements?
well, not cutting taxes in 1981 sure would have helped. It takes a large degree of
political wimpery or gullibility to argue that you can have high spending and low taxes
at the same time. The people that supported that particular boondoggle had a bit of
both.
Defense is also ripe for some cutting. Current policy is to have capacity to fight two
gulf wars simultaneaously. I think we would be better served by having capacity to
fight just one, and work toward our allies being able to pick up some slack if
necessary. There no longer is a military threat even remotely proportionate to the size
of our armed forces.
These two things alone could balance the budget, with Soc. sec. either on or off budget.
But you are correct in that entitlements are the key culprit. You are letting the past
three presidents off the hook a bit too much by not demanding that they should have
shown some leadership and done something about this. Means testing alone would go a
long way. Once the boomers retire there is no way in hell Social security and Medicare
will be reined in, so sooner is better.
Tom Miller
Keith Marchington
Larry writes:
: In <DMEYERS.96...@panix.panix.com> dme...@panix.com (David
: Meyers) writes:
: >
:
: >The real deceit is that people DO think that they are
: >paying "in" to SS, and that they have a _right_ to get
: >that money back. They have no more such right to get
: >SS money than do they have a right to one of the M-16s
: >that were purchased with the money collected from them
: >as income taxes.
: Most of this discussion is semantics about definitions of the deficit,
: but the above is the first step in telling future recipients that they
: have no rights to SS when they retire, which may be true. Why do I
: have an account with so much credit in my name?
You don't. You, as a payer of FICA payroll taxes, are on the
list of future recipients. They will tell you what your
_projected_ payout will be. But that payout is based on the
current state of the law. If the Congress changed it, and the
president signed it, your projected payout could well be $0.00
next time you check. IOW, there is no contract here. SS owes
you nothing if the law is changed to say so.
--
Keith
The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by
men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.
-- Louis Brandeis
#
# The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not
# represent the views of the Hewlett-Packard Co.
#
John K. Taber
Cynthia L Sundell wrote:
>
> Ge...@umich.edu (Gene Gurevich) wrote:
> : On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> :
> : > Killing two million Vietnamese and setting Cambodia up for the Pol Pot
> : > horror is your idea of a positive result?
> :
> : My idea of a positive result is a liberation of Eastern Europe,
> : destruction of Berlin Wall, president Havel etc. Pol Pot was a marxist
> : put to power by Vietnamese communists after we left (remember the domino
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : theory?). You can't blame it on Reagan (you can though blame Clinton)
>
> Do you just make this stuff up?
More likely he is young with no direct knowledge of history, knows little
and believes a lot.
--
john tillinghast
In article <4tr6nn$a...@larry.cc.emory.edu>,
Cynthia L Sundell <csu...@larry.cc.emory.edu> wrote:
>Ge...@umich.edu (Gene Gurevich) wrote:
>: On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>:
>: > Killing two million Vietnamese and setting Cambodia up for the Pol Pot
>: > horror is your idea of a positive result?
>:
>: My idea of a positive result is a liberation of Eastern Europe,
>: destruction of Berlin Wall, president Havel etc. Pol Pot was a marxist
>: put to power by Vietnamese communists after we left (remember the domino
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>: theory?). You can't blame it on Reagan (you can though blame Clinton)
Clinton??? Because he smoked dope?
>
> Do you just make this stuff up? Pol Pot came to power
>*before* the fall of Saigon. He was later driven *out of power*
>by the Vietnamese communists *after* we left.
The US pulled out of Vietnam (in terms of any meaningful numbers) in 1973.
Saigon and Phnom Penh both fell in 1975.
North Vietnam had supported the Khmer Rouge when it was
a guerrilla (sp?) group. After the Khmer Rouge was in power, they repeatedly
sent soldiers into Vietnamese territory, and finally Vietnam invaded Cambodia
and ended the rule of the Khmer Rouge.
> The domino theory certainly was disproved by the events following
>our withdrawal from SE asia. There was no subsequent spread of
>communism out of that area.
It had already spread through Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. I get uncomfortable
with talking about anything as vague as "the domino theory" being "disproved";
as far as I see it shows that Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos were more vulnerable
to guerrilla war and communist power than were Thailand or Burma. (By the way,
David's original comment about the Vietnam war "setting up Cambodia" for the
Khmer Rouge may well be correct, since it did make Cambodia more vulnerable
to the Khmer Rouge.)
John
--
John Tillinghast
vanya@leland / john@gnomic (.stanford.edu)
Visit the SAGE page:
Internaut Capt Jack
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
If the deficit is only 2% of GDP, why worry?
David Lloyd-Jones
>> >Or absent gazillion dollars spent on "great society", we'd have a balanced
>> >budget. the difference is that military spending had a positive result
>>
>> horror is your idea of a positive result?
>My idea of a positive result is a liberation of Eastern Europe,
>destruction of Berlin Wall, president Havel etc.
I agree with you that these were positiv results -- but not of
anything Reagan did. Communism would have falled a generation earlier
but for the prestige and power of the Red Army -- a prestige
established by WWII, but maintained by the Cold War.
> Pol Pot was a marxist
>put to power by Vietnamese communists after we left (remember the domino
>theory?). You can't blame it on Reagan (you can though blame Clinton)
Wrong again. Pol Pot was (and is) a Marxist whose only claim to power
was the shattering of South East Asia by the return of the French
Empire after WWII, and then by the US taking over France's role after
its defeat. Pol Pot was _overthrown_ by the Vietnamese Communists,
which is why he is still recognised as a legitimate force in Cambodia
by the US, who object to the merciful, but illegitimate, act of the
Vietnamese Communists.
Clinton, of course, was one of the decent majority of Americans who
objected to this madness.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
bu...@megalinx.net (Internaut Capt Jack) asks:
>d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>>bu...@megalinx.net (Internaut Capt Jack) wrote:
>>>BTW, David, look at these figures. As I understand the liberal
>>>rhetoric, the Reagan military expansion increased the deficit, right.
>>>Defense as a % of GDP
>>>1970 8.25%
>>>1975 4.75%
>>>1980 5.00%
>>>1985 6.25%
>>>1987 7.00%
>>>As a % of GDP, Reagan only got us up to the 1974 level of defense
>>>spending. The 1 or 2 % flucuation is hardly enough to generate the
>>>deficits that developed.
>>Your figures show defense going from 5% of GNP in Carter's last full
>>budget to 7% in Reagan's -- a 40% rise in it's saliency in an economy
>>that was also both growing and inflating.
>>
>>Since the Reagan deficit was two-point-something percent of GNP, this
>>2% of GNP increase in defense spending would seem to account for most
>>of it, and interest on earlier defense spending would account for the
>>rest by 1988.
>If the deficit is only 2% of GDP, why worry?
Because piled up year after year for twelve years, plus interest, it
adds up to a pile of change -- all of it in bonds held by the richer
half, but with the interest paid by everybody.
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
bu...@megalinx.net (Internaut Capt Jack) wrote:
>>>"On-Budget" Deficit
>>>1980 -72.7 Reagan lowered taxes and the deficit went up.
>>The above is the result of Jimmy Carter's second last budget.
>>>1981 -74.0
>>50% of this one is still Carter.
>>>1982 -120.1
>>This, up 62% is the _first_ full Reagan budget cycle.
>OK, but the inflation rate is also no longer in double digits. If you
>would prefer to inflate away deficits, then that is your perogative.
Cap'n,
The fact that these incredible rises were happening despite the drop
in inflation makes it _worse_ not better.
>>>1983 -208.0
>>>1984 -185.7
>>>1985 -221.7
>>>1986 -238.0
>>>1987 -169.3
>>>1988 -194.0
>>>1989 -205.2 Bush
>>>1990 -278.0 Bush
>>>1991 -321.4 Desert Storm Bush BTW, Bush raised taxes, and the
>>>deficit still went up.
>>Uh, Bumpy, Desert Storm was Hessians for rent: the US ran it at a
>>profit.
>I would like to see the numbers on that one. Do you have a source?
100+%. George Bush.
-dlj.
William F. Hummel
Al Kozakiewicz (ako...@hourglass.com) wrote:
: What credible people are proposing is a modest use of ABM technology to
: deter attacks from rogue nations like N. Korea, Iran and Iraq when (not
: if) they finally acquire intercontinental delivery systems to go along
: with their payloads. No one is proposing that we build today a system to
: thwart a Soviet-era MAD magnitude nuclear exchange.
: Like it or not, we're probably less than 20 years away from at least a
: half-dozen nations having some limited ability to launch deadly payloads
: from their soil to ours. Some prudent investment today to neutralize that
: threat will seem like a bargain in 2 decades when the options are fewer
: and more costly.
--------------
It would be nice if there were a prudent investment available. The
problem starts with defining the threats we need to defend against.
The threat of an ICBM attack by the countries you mention is really
very remote. Just as with the Cuban missiles, we could easily detect
and if necessary destroy them on the ground before they could be used.
Trying to develop an effective anti-ICBM screen that would destroy
them as they are launched or in mid-flight would require much of the
investment we once visualized for SDI. If they intend to do us harm,
there are far easier, cheaper, and less observable ways to do the job.
For example: Load a hydrogen bomb on a ship that is scheduled to dock
in New York or some other major U.S. port. Even a good sized pleasure
craft would work.
Unfortunately a fanatic enemy can succeed if determined to do so.
Our best and probably only defense against a nuclear attack is our
ability to massively retaliate. It worked for 40 years. And it is
already in place, just as it was when Reagan bought into the SDI
boondoggle.
William F. Hummel
Dell Erickson
cjt...@ix.netcom.com(Charles Tutt ) wrote:
>In <Pine.ULT.3.95.960730...@red5.cac.washington.edu>
>Tracy Monaghan <mona...@cac.washington.edu> writes:
>>
>>On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Internaut Capt Jack wrote:
>>
>>> Demographics and entitlements have far more to do with the deficit
>>> than the person holding the Office of President. The S&L crisis
>didn't
>>> help either.
>>
>>According to a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, of the
>>approximately US$2 trillion federal debt accumulated during the eight
>>years Reagan held office, US$1 trillion resulted from decreased
>revenues
>>(i.e. tax cuts) and the other US$1 trillion from increased defense
>>spending.
>>
>>These were Reagan's two main campaign issues.
>>
>>The S&L bailout legislation was signed into law in Aug 1989 by
>President
>>Bush and did not contribute to the federal debt from 1981 through 1988
>>(the Reagan years).
>>
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Tracy <mona...@cac.washington.edu>
>>Sr. Computer Specialist
>>Information Systems
>>Campus mail: Box 354844
>>
>IMHO, however, it was the Reagan frenzy of deregulation which led to
>the need for an S&L bailout, so I still credit it to him. When nobody
>is watching the henhouse, the foxes will take over.
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I have three things to say in response to your statements:
1. The fate of the S & L's was determined, not by current developments, but by its
enabling legislation years ago; the legislation was profoundly flawed;
2. "Entitlements" - read that Social Security/Medicare is also profoundly flawed. The
program design and funding of the Social Security/Medicare programs are the most
Machiavellian schemes ever devised by any government in history to impoverish the worker,
the family, wreck havoc on the economy, and create ruinous social discord. The Social
Security/Medicare programs are founded on deception; it is THE American Tragedy. Because
they are profoundly flawed by design, the inescapable result of the funding of these
programs will be the American economic Apocalypse and Social Armageddon;
3. this "misc.invest" venue is not the area for these discussions.
_______________________________________________________________
Dell Erickson
ri...@tc.umn.edu
________________________________________________________________
Stephen Ray
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>bu...@megalinx.net (Internaut Capt Jack) wrote:
>>"On-Budget" Deficit
>>1980 -72.7 Reagan lowered taxes and the deficit went up.
>The above is the result of Jimmy Carter's second last budget.
>>1981 -74.0
>50% of this one is still Carter.
>>1982 -120.1
>This, up 62% is the _first_ full Reagan budget cycle.
>>1984 -185.7
>>1985 -221.7
>>1986 -238.0
>>1987 -169.3
>>1988 -194.0
>>1989 -205.2 Bush
>>1990 -278.0 Bush
>>1991 -321.4 Desert Storm Bush BTW, Bush raised taxes, and the
>>deficit still went up.
>Uh, Bumpy, Desert Storm was Hessians for rent: the US ran it at a
>profit.
>Don't blame Desert Storm for this: more profit was rolling in.
>>1993 -300.5 Clinton BTW, Clinton raised taxes and the deficit still
>>went up
>Nope. This is Bush's last full year..
>>1994 -258.8 Clinton
>50% Clinton.
>>1995 -251.8 Clinton
>Clinton's first full budget cycle. Defict down 2.8%
>>1996 -262.0 est Clinton
David, you're a little inconsistent. If Carter & Reagan split the 1981
deficit 50/50, then Bush & Clinton split the 1993 deficit 50/50, and the
1994 deficit is 100% Clinton. Also, the 1989 deficit is 50% Reagan and 50%
Bush.
steve
sasha
lar...@ix.netcom.com(LARRY) wrote:
>Do you really expect our side to proclaim to the enemy that our system
>is no good? The thought that we had a workable system undoubtedly had
>an effect upon Iraqi tactics. It's like a poker game; bluffing is
>relevant. We used the best we had, which was limited by those far
>sighted visionaries who didn't want the Defense Department to 'rip us
>off' by spending money on a better system.
Whatever tactics worked during the war is OK with me. *After* the war,
however, the truth could have been (and should have been) delivered
before CBO called their bluff.
Alexander
Internaut Capt Jack
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>
>Because piled up year after year for twelve years, plus interest, it
>adds up to a pile of change -- all of it in bonds held by the richer
>half, but with the interest paid by everybody.
>
> -dlj.
Uh, what richer half is that? The Japanese or the US pension funds,
and believe it or not, the Social Security trust fund. BTW, those
bonds are paid in $'s, I think we got a pretty good deal, considering
we essentially sold them short to hte Japanese. They paid a premium
for them and the dollar dropped like a rock. 2%, even compounded over
12 years still does not equal the value of most home mortgages on a
%age basis, and a govt does not have a limited life in which to pay it
off.
BTW Dave, how many more deaths do you think would have occured in Iraq
w/o these bombs and weapons developed in the 80's? What language do
you think England would be speaking if the US was not there to save
and protect her? Face it, our cold war and entering WWII saved your
butt. Our deficit, your benefit.
Brad Ensminger
Not necessarily. If the press/CBO/whoever hadn't started shouting to
the unwashed terrorist masses of the world that our system didn't work
I doubt very seriously if they'd have had the resources to find out on
their own. Personally I'd far rather have a mass of terrorists who have
to think twice about their ability to lash out at innocent people over
great distances (read, "With missiles") than terrorists who've been told
that we have no defence against them. Why give then carte blanche when
it's not necessary to do so?
Cheers,
Brad Ensminger
>Alexander
Internaut Capt Jack
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>bu...@megalinx.net (Internaut Capt Jack) wrote:
>>>>"On-Budget" Deficit
>>>>1980 -72.7 Reagan lowered taxes and the deficit went up.
>>>The above is the result of Jimmy Carter's second last budget.
>>>>1981 -74.0
>>>50% of this one is still Carter.
>>>>1982 -120.1
>>>This, up 62% is the _first_ full Reagan budget cycle.
>>OK, but the inflation rate is also no longer in double digits. If you
>>would prefer to inflate away deficits, then that is your perogative.
>
>Cap'n,
>
>The fact that these incredible rises were happening despite the drop
>in inflation makes it _worse_ not better.
I did not claim that, I simply said that Reagan not only had the cold
war to deal with, he also had to bring down inflation. He did that
through a tight monetary poilcy that created a recession, ie lower tax
revenues and a higher deficit. Reagan and Bush both had recessions
that would be expected to worsen the numbers, what does Clinton have?
>>>>1983 -208.0
>>>>1984 -185.7
>>>>1985 -221.7
>>>>1986 -238.0
>>>>1987 -169.3
>>>>1988 -194.0
>>>>1989 -205.2 Bush
>>>>1990 -278.0 Bush
>>>>1991 -321.4 Desert Storm Bush BTW, Bush raised taxes, and the
>>>>deficit still went up.
>>>Uh, Bumpy, Desert Storm was Hessians for rent: the US ran it at a
>>>profit.
>>I would like to see the numbers on that one. Do you have a source?
>100+%. George Bush.
Show me a source. Maybe our arms mgf made money, but I doubt if our
govt got fully reimbursed. Heck, look at all our forces overseas, do
you think we get paid by Europe to have them there? No. Did Europe pay
us for our part in Desert Storm? No. Do we not do the R&D for the
world as far as weapons systems go, yes. We develope them, you buy
them. Which is more expensive? Why does Europe not have a Stealth
Bomber? Or any other cutting edge weapon? Because the US is the only
country that can develpe such a weapon, and we have decided not to
sell it. We protect the world, and other ungrateful countries sit back
and criticize us. Consider the lives saved by these weapons, is that
not worth a deficit? Considering Iran and Iraq fought for years and
lost thousands of lives. We now have shortened the length of wars, and
reduced casulties. That is something to be applauded, not criticized.
>
> -dlj.
sasha
ako...@hourglass.com (Al Kozakiewicz) wrote:
>Like it or not, we're probably less than 20 years away from at least a
>half-dozen nations having some limited ability to launch deadly payloads
>from their soil to ours. Some prudent investment today to neutralize that
>threat will seem like a bargain in 2 decades when the options are fewer
>and more costly.
In this case, we're probably less than 30 or 40 years away from at least a
half-dozen nations having *massive* ability to launch deadly payloads
from their soil to ours. I'm afraid any "prudent" investment of this
nature amount to waste of money.
Alexander
Gene Gurevich
On 1 Aug 1996, Cynthia L Sundell wrote:
> Ge...@umich.edu (Gene Gurevich) wrote:
> : On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> :
> : > Killing two million Vietnamese and setting Cambodia up for the Pol Pot
> : > horror is your idea of a positive result?
> :
> : My idea of a positive result is a liberation of Eastern Europe,
> : destruction of Berlin Wall, president Havel etc. Pol Pot was a marxist
> : put to power by Vietnamese communists after we left (remember the domino
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : theory?). You can't blame it on Reagan (you can though blame Clinton)
>
> Do you just make this stuff up? Pol Pot came to power
> *before* the fall of Saigon. He was later driven *out of power*
> by the Vietnamese communists *after* we left.
I don't suppose you gave much thought to the idea that he might have been
supported by North Vietnam *before* and removed *after* he killed enough
people... I guess this would contradict the main rule "blame it on
America", right?
> The domino theory certainly was disproved by the events following
> our withdrawal from SE asia. There was no subsequent spread of
> communism out of that area.
What? Didn't you hear about Laos and Cambodia?.. Oh, well, if I wanted to
get into that I'd be reading talk.politics.misc.
I'm so glad I didn't go to US public school :)
Gene Gurevich
On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
> >My idea of a positive result is a liberation of Eastern Europe,
> >destruction of Berlin Wall, president Havel etc.
>
> I agree with you that these were positiv results -- but not of
> anything Reagan did. Communism would have falled a generation earlier
> but for the prestige and power of the Red Army -- a prestige
> established by WWII, but maintained by the Cold War.
"Woulda, coulda, shoulda...." communism did not fall generation earlier.
And it would not have falled in the late 80s had it not be for tough
Reagan policies. That's what matter...
> Wrong again. Pol Pot was (and is) a Marxist whose only claim to power
> was the shattering of South East Asia by the return of the French
> Empire after WWII, and then by the US taking over France's role after
> its defeat. Pol Pot was _overthrown_ by the Vietnamese Communists,
> which is why he is still recognised as a legitimate force in Cambodia
> by the US, who object to the merciful, but illegitimate, act of the
> Vietnamese Communists.
>
> Clinton, of course, was one of the decent majority of Americans who
> objected to this madness.
Funny, how you never remember the people killed by the communists during
the war and after the war. Also yu got me confused between "merciful",
"illegitimate" and " madness". they all can't relate to the same thing...
David Lloyd-Jones
RFC...@poly.phys.cwru.edu (Jonathan Stott) wrote:
>Yes, funny how all of a sudden "rogue nations" became a serious threat
>as soon as the Soviet Union ceased to be one. And funny how these "rogue
>nations" are always predicted to acquire ICBMs a year or two after the
>projected completion date of a domestic ABM system...
Jonathan,
You must realise, of course, that there is an easy cure for these
putative rogue nations. All we need is a program of R&D on rockets and
radars to prevent asteroids from crashing into the Earth. Given this,
it would no doubt be found that rogue nations could be taken care of
by the existing air force -- given periodic updates and improvements
in equipment, naturally...
Cheers,
-dlj.
David Lloyd-Jones
r...@arc.umn.edu (Stephen Ray) wrote:
>David, you're a little inconsistent. If Carter & Reagan split the 1981
>deficit 50/50, then Bush & Clinton split the 1993 deficit 50/50, and the
>1994 deficit is 100% Clinton. Also, the 1989 deficit is 50% Reagan and 50%
>Bush.
Steve,
You're right. I slipped a line there.
-dlj.
John K. Taber
David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>
> patt...@spudboy.ads.com (Tim J. Patterson) wrote:
>
> >Another thing to consider is that the Soviet system was so full of
> >disinformation that they probably would not trust any public release
> >of information. At the time of the collapse, computer technology in
> >the US was so far in advace of the Soviet system that many people had
> >better home computers than the best available to the top Soviet
> >scientists.
>
> Tim,
>
> This is an extremely implausible thing for you to write. In my
> experience top Soviet scientists have always shopped in the same
> computer stores you or I would.
>
> -dlj.
You're kidding, right?
I don't remember now where I read the article, either the CACM or the
IBM System Journal, sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. As I recall,
Soviet mainframes were imitations of the IBM 360. I can't quite recall
the Russian acronym for this series.
Soviet computers, at least mainframes, were far behind. Later, we
learned that Soviet programmers partly made up for their deficient
machines with highly skilled, artisan programming that milked the
last microsecond of performance out of them.
--
John
David Lloyd-Jones
David Lloyd-Jones
Gene Gurevich <ge...@umich.edu> wrote:
>On Fri, 2 Aug 1996, David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>> >My idea of a positive result is a liberation of Eastern Europe,
>> >destruction of Berlin Wall, president Havel etc.
>>
>> I agree with you that these were positiv results -- but not of
>> anything Reagan did. Communism would have falled a generation earlier
>> but for the prestige and power of the Red Army -- a prestige
>> established by WWII, but maintained by the Cold War.
>"Woulda, coulda, shoulda...." communism did not fall generation earlier.
>And it would not have falled in the late 80s had it not be for tough
>Reagan policies. That's what matter...
Gene,
This is fiction. The only "tough" Reagan policy was the invasion of
Grenada. Star Wars was, as its name conveys, a giggle from start to
finish, and Reagan's defence people -- the ones that stayed out of
jail, that is -- spent most of their time trying to stay out of jail.
It was a Western-on-location nuthouse the guy was running.
The whole thing is a sad period in American history, and you dishonor
the decent Europeans and Russians who were doing good things at the
time by trying to steal credit from them on the pitiful Reagan's
behalf.
-dlj.
Internaut Capt Jack
d...@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
>bu...@megalinx.net (Internaut Capt Jack) wrote:
>>"On-Budget" Deficit
>>1980 -72.7 Reagan lowered taxes and the deficit went up.
>The above is the result of Jimmy Carter's second last budget.
>>1981 -74.0
>50% of this one is still Carter.
>>1982 -120.1
>This, up 62% is the _first_ full Reagan budget cycle.
OK, but the inflation rate is also no longer in double digits. If you
would prefer to inflate away deficits, then that is your perogative.
>>1983 -208.0
>>1984 -185.7
>>1985 -221.7
>>1986 -238.0
>>1987 -169.3
>>1988 -194.0
>>1989 -205.2 Bush
>>1990 -278.0 Bush
>>1991 -321.4 Desert Storm Bush BTW, Bush raised taxes, and the
>>deficit still went up.
>Uh, Bumpy, Desert Storm was Hessians for rent: the US ran it at a
>profit.
I would like to see the numbers on that one. Do you have a source?
>>1992 -340.5 Desert Storm Bush
>Don't blame Desert Storm for this: more profit was rolling in.
>>1993 -300.5 Clinton BTW, Clinton raised taxes and the deficit still
>>went up
>Nope. This is Bush's last full year..
>>1994 -258.8 Clinton
>50% Clinton.
>>1995 -251.8 Clinton
>Clinton's first full budget cycle. Defict down 2.8%
>>1996 -262.0 est Clinton
>
> Ah, yes, statistics...
Ah, yes, statistics, all this over a "Defict down 2.8%."
No war, no recession, no Soviet threat, no S&L crisis, and you are all
giddy about 2.8%? He had the easiest most peaceful time in the world,
and the best he can do is 2.8%? Reagan triggered the fall of the USSR,
and you are unhappy, Clinto decreases a deficit by 2.8% and you go
giddy. Reagan increases defense by 2% and you go balistic, go figure.
>
> -dlj.
>
Tim J. Patterson
In article <31FEA2...@onramp.net> "John K. Taber" <jkt...@onramp.net> writes:
Frank Palmer wrote:
>
> This has puzzled me for some time. Hummel is right that the fact that we
> didn't have a practical system was well known. The Soviets should have picked
> it up, _Scientific American_ did.
>
> HOWEVER:
> There is a great deal of information that persuades me that the
> Soviet leadership did NOT pick up on it. They expected (or at least
> feared) a working system.
Good points. I suspect that in some aspects the Soviet system was not that
much different from ours. Just as Reagan's courtisans pitched to his
prejudices, I imagine that Gorby's courtisans pitched to his. I imagine
both sets of courtisans had a stake in keeping expensive military programs
going.
Another thing to consider is that the Soviet system was so full of
disinformation that they probably would not trust any public release
of information. At the time of the collapse, computer technology in
the US was so far in advace of the Soviet system that many people had
better home computers than the best available to the top Soviet
scientists. In an environment of distrust and surface evidence of far
more advanced technology, with a slight political agenda it would be
easy to disbelieve pubilic information.
--
Tim J. Patterson Ph.D.
Senior Associate
Booz Allen & Hamilton
Sunnyvale CA
David Lloyd-Jones
"John K. Taber" <jkt...@onramp.net> wrote:
>David Lloyd-Jones wrote:
>>
>> patt...@spudboy.ads.com (Tim J. Patterson) wrote:
>>
>> >Another thing to consider is that the Soviet system was so full of
>> >disinformation that they probably would not trust any public release
>> >of information. At the time of the collapse, computer technology in
>> >the US was so far in advace of the Soviet system that many people had
>> >better home computers than the best available to the top Soviet
>> >scientists.
>>
>> Tim,
>>
>> This is an extremely implausible thing for you to write. In my
>> experience top Soviet scientists have always shopped in the same
>> computer stores you or I would.
>>
>> -dlj.
>You're kidding, right?
No, John. I mean exactly what I say above.
>I don't remember now where I read the article, either the CACM or the
>IBM System Journal, sometime in the late 70s or early 80s. As I recall,
>Soviet mainframes were imitations of the IBM 360. I can't quite recall
>the Russian acronym for this series.
This wasn't about mainframes, it was about what "leading scientists,"
everybody in Akadamagorsk, department heads, anybody who came to a
Western conference, all the people on the Russian side of the roster
on the Vienna systems analysis center, etc. etc. did: they bought Macs
for their kids and Compaqs and Dells for themselves, and they got the
newest Pentiums about as fast as us.
>Soviet computers, at least mainframes, were far behind. Later, we
>learned that Soviet programmers partly made up for their deficient
>machines with highly skilled, artisan programming that milked the
>last microsecond of performance out of them.
Of course they were. My friend Roger Levien used to edit the Rand
Corporation newsletter of Russian computation: half his subscribers
were in Russia. It wasn't just that we knew more about computing than
they did: we knew more abour _Russian_ computing than they did.
(In somewhat the same vein, the directory of Russian ham operators was
always published and handed out free by the CIA.)
But what I say above concerns micros for home use, and I stand by it.
Some of the Russians (I believe my acquaintances in Novisibirsk read
this newsgroup) might want to comment.
-dlj.
Mason A. Clark
On Sat, 3 Aug 1996 03:57:28 GMT, wfhu...@netcom.com (William F. Hummel) wrote:
> David Lloyd-Jones (d...@inforamp.net) wrote:
> : Jonathan,
>
> : You must realise, of course, that there is an easy cure for these
> : putative rogue nations. All we need is a program of R&D on rockets and
> : radars to prevent asteroids from crashing into the Earth.
> ------------
> Dave, I assume you are speaking tongue in cheek. If not, you really
> should avoid making such wild assertions, as they do nothing for your
> credibility. Better to stick to fuzzier things like economics.
>
> : Given this,
> : it would no doubt be found that rogue nations could be taken care of
> : by the existing air force -- given periodic updates and improvements
> : in equipment, naturally...
> ------------
> More nonsense. The air force cannot destroy targets it cannot detect.
> There are many ways for rogue nations to deliver bombs to American soil
> undetected. Our borders are far too extended and porous, as the flow of
> drugs and other contreband has long proven.
>
> William F. Hummel
Amusing exchange. I read David differently. I thought he meant that
if we had an asteroid program a la Manhattan or Man-on-Moon, the need
for other DOD projects would be less. Then DOD would be happy with
their asteroids and tell us P15's could take care of the rogue nations.
William, note that David said "it would no doubt be found." He didn't
say it would be true.
I wish my friends wouldn't squabble so much. It makes my hearing aid
squeal.
---------------------------------------
Mason A Clark mas...@ix.netcom.com
http://www.netcom.com/~masonc
Signs and Scenes on the Road to Serfdom
political economics, comets, P.P.Quimby
---------------------------------------
William F. Hummel
David Lloyd-Jones (d...@inforamp.net) wrote:
: RFC...@poly.phys.cwru.edu (Jonathan Stott) wrote:
: >Yes, funny how all of a sudden "rogue nations" became a serious threat
: >as soon as the Soviet Union ceased to be one. And funny how these "rogue
: >nations" are always predicted to acquire ICBMs a year or two after the
: >projected completion date of a domestic ABM system...
: Jonathan,
RHA
In article <4tpcge$o...@lori.albany.net>,
Al Kozakiewicz <ako...@hourglass.com> wrote:
>In article <32001C...@onramp.net>, jkt...@onramp.net says...
>
>>Put your money in the bank, even a checking account. Guess what? The bank
>>has lent your money out, or is otherwise using it, and it's not there.
>>It's not there. Oh woe! Oh lack-a-day! Oh my ducats! Oh my daughter! But
>>somehow, your check is cashed. Amazing, isn't it?
>
>The government is not a bank. It does not create wealth; in fact, the
Half right only. It *ENABLES* the creation of wealth. You think
not? Look at the tragedy of Africa, Bosnia, etc. *OUR* form of
government generates the necessary preconditions for wealth.
Look at Asia and how those governments are taking on
characteristics of western government. Their economic advances
aren't exactly accidental, even allowing for our trade policies.
>taxation of it depresses its creation by the private sector, and the
>policies funded by use of that confiscated wealth, on the whole, further
>discourage its creation.
>
>As a more accurate analogy, take your retirement savings and spend it on a
>vacation. Throw a big party. Fix that hole in the roof. Send your kids
>to Harvard. Tack an I.O.U. onto the account statement. Come back in 20
>years and figure out who's going to honor those I.O.U.'s. Oh, it's you,
>and you can't get the money without forgoing niceties like food, or
>pricing yourself out of the job market. Unfortunately, and unlike the
>government, you can't simply go to your employer and force them to
>increase your wages to cover those debts. I guess it isn't quite like a
>bank, is it?
>
>The original justification for higher FICA taxes was that if we didn't
>sock enough money away in the SS "trust fund" (what a joke) today, there
>wouldn't be enough to cover future obligations. Well, guess what? There
>still won't be enough because the Federal government done spent it all
>today anyway and left naught but T-bills to cover the future obligations.
>In effect, instead of a future crisis in FICA taxes when the cash inflow
>is not enough to cover the cash outflow, there will be a future crisis
>where servicing the debt owed to SS will have to come from higher general
>fund taxes, curtailed programs or both. Money is fungible. Taking out of
>the left pocket and putting into the right does not increase your net
>worth.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Al
>
>--
>________________________________________________________________________
>Al Kozakiewicz, President phone: 518.452.9062
>Hourglass Systems, Inc.
>Microsoft Solution Provider
>________________________________________________________________________
>
--
rha
RHA
In article <4tp6km$i...@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>,
Edward M Duran <e...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Well I liked and voted for Reagan. Some say his policies brought
>communism down.
Mebbe, but then you have to explain why some people were predicting
the fall of the USSR by the 1990s. Most of their civilian
infrastructure was falling apart.
> Was the price worth it???? Some think the price of
>FDR's policies were and continue to be enormous.
>Personally, I think the FED is the problem.
Fifty percent of the problem.
> If you look at the Asian
>economies, they seek GROWTH and set policies to achieve it.
Ahh, the *other* fifty percent (well, foreign trade *DEFICITS*).
They couldn't achieve their growth targets if we didn't give
them access to our markets in excess of what they give us.
(Yeah, yeah, I *know* the competition arguments, and I agree
GM, Ford, and Chrysler's management needed a butt kicking;
but we should not have allowed the labor cost differential
to be exported. Only the quality differential.)
> These
>fast/high growth countries have ZERO estate taxes and ZERO capital
>gains taxes. Meanwhile the Fed is schizo with an inflation monster
>that doesnt exist and keeps its foot on the brake to achieve an anemic
>growth rate that will ensure the U.S. loses whatever dominance it still
>has in business and technology.
Absolute agreement. Greenspan will be roundly condemned by economic
historians of the next generation.
Without major salary increases for the middle & lower classes, our
budget problems will only worsen.
The Roman empire might be instructive to our politicans. Rome fell
after the aristocracy succeeded in getting itself exempted from
imperial taxes. (Shades of the "Flat" tax and tax exempt capital
gains. Capital assets will become so valuable that the average
person won't be able to afford them.)
> And maybe the rate of growth in the
>national debt might be reduced but the national debt itself will
>continue to rise as we head down the same road as the UK.
>ED
--
rha
David Lloyd-Jones
wfhu...@netcom.com (William F. Hummel) wrote:
>: Jonathan,
William,
Your reasoning, and your name calling, above proceed, it seems to me
from your failure to observe the premise Jonathan and I share, that
the programs named here have nothing whatsoever to do with rogue
nations, prevention of ICBM's, and so on and so forth.
It is simply a matter of finding a little business for Lockheed and
friends.
Thus it could not matter less whether the Airforce can actually find
its targets. Better, perhaps, it should not be able to: that
justifies more research and better planes next year.
I would have thought that all of this was pretty obvious -- indeed it
is obvious to others who have written to me. Perhaps you could
re-read, reconsider, and retract?
There is, of course, just the tiniest bit of hyperbole and humor in
casting criticism of the Pentagon in these terms. These are, however,
gilt on the gingerbread truth that armed forces will generally find a
need for armed forces, no matter what strange stretches of the
imagination it takes.
Best wishes,
-dlj.
Al Kozakiewicz
In article <4turop$o...@praline.no.neosoft.com>,
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com says...
>
> Half right only. It *ENABLES* the creation of wealth. You think
> not? Look at the tragedy of Africa, Bosnia, etc. *OUR* form of
> government generates the necessary preconditions for wealth.
> Look at Asia and how those governments are taking on
> characteristics of western government. Their economic advances
> aren't exactly accidental, even allowing for our trade policies.
A system of government does not need to redistribute 30%+ of the GDP in
order to establish the preconditions for the creation of wealth. The
point is not that the departments of state, defense and justice or the
constitution are unnecessary. It is that government "investments" in
agriculture policy, chocolate smearing performance artists, and thousands
of other idiotic programs create no wealth and, in fact, actively
discourage it.
William F. Hummel
David Lloyd-Jones (d...@inforamp.net) wrote:
: >: Jonathan,
-------------
David, do you know the distinction between hyperbole and cynicism?
William F. Hummel
Brad Ensminger
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) writes:
> Without major salary increases for the middle & lower classes, our
> budget problems will only worsen.
How 'bout major tax breaks instead? It achieves the same thing with the
expection that major salary increases would likely throw eocnomic marktes
into a major tailspin but major tax breaks would at worst have little effect
on markets and at best drive them higher.
> The Roman empire might be instructive to our politicans. Rome fell
> after the aristocracy succeeded in getting itself exempted from
> imperial taxes. (Shades of the "Flat" tax and tax exempt capital
> gains. Capital assets will become so valuable that the average
> person won't be able to afford them.)
Your arguement against lower CG taxes might have held water decades ago
when the average American had no vested interest in the markets but now
with the advent of mutual funds, individual investment in stocks, IRAs,
401-Ks that invest in stocks & mutual funds, etc. there's a great reason
to lower the CG taxes...it'll benefit more of the average Americans than
it ever would have in the past.
Cheers,
Brad Ensminger
Brad Ensminger
ri...@praline.no.neosoft.com (RHA) writes:
>>The government is not a bank. It does not create wealth; in fact, the
> Half right only. It *ENABLES* the creation of wealth. You think
> not? Look at the tragedy of Africa, Bosnia, etc. *OUR* form of
> government generates the necessary preconditions for wealth.
> Look at Asia and how those governments are taking on
> characteristics of western government. Their economic advances
> aren't exactly accidental, even allowing for our trade policies.
True but the other half of the statement that you forgot to include is the
fact that at some point tax rates become punitive (I.E. the government
siphons off more wealth than it manages to create by doing so.) The
point of discussion is when those tax rates pass the point of necessity
and venture into the realm of excess. IMHO we're far beyond that point
already.
Cheers,
Brad Ensminger